The High Court has ordered four proceedings brought by a brother and sister over their mother’s death to be consolidated, granting an application by the defendants under the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 18 February 2020, concerned claims arising from the death of Kathleen Lee on 9 May 2016 while she was in the defendants’ care. The defendants’ solicitor said in an affidavit that she had allegedly fallen and struck her head while being transferred to bed on 29 April 2016. The judgment records that the siblings were not present when the fall occurred.
Each sibling had brought two sets of proceedings. The claims included actions for psychiatric injury and a fatal injuries claim. The siblings were willing to consolidate the two proceedings brought by each of them separately, but opposed combining all four proceedings. They submitted that their emotional suffering and losses were individual and different, and that court time and costs could be saved by hearing their actions together while preserving their separate cases.
The defendants argued that the liability issues, evidence and expert witnesses would substantially overlap. They said consolidation would avoid duplicated work and costs. The court noted that hearing cases together would still leave two sets of High Court costs, while consolidation would reduce the costs arising from the proceedings. It also observed that the siblings’ medical evidence was the main area of difference, and that the same psychologist had been instructed for both, with the same doctor retained by the defendants.
Applying the three-part test in *Duffy v News Group Newspapers Ltd*—whether there was an important common question, a substantial saving of expense or inconvenience, and a risk of confusion or injustice—Mr Justice Barrett found the common issues were broad and the saving of a full set of High Court costs substantial. He considered the risk of confusion low, if any, and found no risk of a miscarriage of justice.
The court therefore granted the defendants’ requested consolidation order. The judgment decided how the four proceedings would be managed; it did not determine the underlying claims or allegations about the circumstances of Ms Lee’s death.