The High Court has refused Allergan Limited’s application to dismiss Denise Mulhall’s proceedings over breast implants that she says ruptured within three to four years of implantation. The ruling means the case can proceed at this stage; it does not establish that the implants were defective or decide liability.
Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger said the plaintiff had pleaded sufficiently to require Allergan to file a defence. She dismissed the defendant’s application under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which alleged that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was bound to fail. She also declined to order updated pleadings or an amended indorsement of claim.
The proceedings concern implants manufactured by Allergan and inserted during surgery on 3 February 2010. The judgment recounts that the plaintiff experienced pain and swelling in her left breast in 2014, when a rupture was confirmed. Both implants were removed on 24 July 2014. A further left implant, inserted after that surgery, was diagnosed as ruptured in January 2017 and removed the following month. The parties’ proceedings, first begun separately in the Circuit Court and High Court, were later transferred and consolidated in the High Court.
The plaintiff alleges the ruptures amounted to defects and claims breaches of the Liability for Defective Products Act 1991, among other claims. Allergan argued that the pleadings did not explain adequately how the products were defective. The judge described the pleaded details as brief, but said the alleged ruptures within three to four years of implantation were enough for the claim to pass the threshold for dismissal at this point. She made no finding validating the plaintiff’s position or deciding that the implants were defective.
The judgment records that Allergan confirmed in January 2025 that it held three of the implants and would arrange inspection under appropriate conditions. It said it had no record of receiving a fourth implant. Allergan had stated in a 2016 notice for particulars that it had analysed a device and concluded that contact with a sharp instrument was the root cause of the incident; the judgment notes the plaintiff had not had sight of independent evidence supporting that conclusion.
The judge said Allergan may later be entitled to further particulars, but that the issue was one of timing and sequencing and had not yet arisen. She also said this was not a case requiring the plaintiff to reply to particulars before Allergan could plead its defence. A later application to dismiss remains possible after procedural steps, including inspection or discovery, if pursued.
The judge’s indicative view was that the plaintiff should receive the costs of both motions, including her motion for judgment in default of defence, with costs to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. She listed the matter for mention on 18 March 2025 and invited the parties to discuss directions to progress the litigation.