The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by five Roche companies seeking to stop a wrongful death action brought by Liam Grant over the death of his son, Liam Grant Junior. The ruling leaves the civil claim free to proceed; it does not decide whether Roaccutane caused or contributed to the death or whether any defendant was at fault.
Grant Junior was a 20-year-old University College Dublin engineering student who died by suicide in June 1997 while taking a prescribed course of Roaccutane for acne. His father alleges that depression, suicidal thoughts and suicide are recognised side effects of the drug, and claims it was defective and that the defendants breached their duties. The Roche defendants deny liability and deny that the drug caused or contributed to severe depression, psychiatric disorders, suicidal thoughts or suicide.
The Roche defendants asked the courts to stay or restrain the proceedings after offering €30,990.22 for damages, together with the plaintiff’s costs and the other defendants’ costs, without admitting liability. The sum comprised €25,394.76 for mental distress and €5,595.46 for funeral expenses. They argued that the offer covered the damages available under the fatal injuries provisions of the Civil Liability Act 1961, leaving no tangible benefit in continuing the case.
Grant rejected the offer. His solicitors said he sought a determination of responsibility for his son’s death and had incurred substantial costs investigating the drug and its regulatory history. Whether that research expenditure can be recovered as damages, rather than treated as costs, remained disputed.
The Supreme Court held that a court can restrict proceedings in a suitable case, but that power must be exercised sparingly. It found that establishing whether the death resulted from a defendant’s wrongful act fell within the statutory claim, and that such a determination could provide a tangible benefit to the family. The Court also rejected the Roche defendants’ argument that civil law has no role in vindicating personal rights.
The Court said it was not deciding the merits of the claim. It did not find that the plaintiff was likely to succeed; it concluded only that the claim could not be held clearly unsustainable or bound to fail on the material before it. The recoverability of the research expenses was also left undecided as a live issue for the proceedings.
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order refusing to halt the action. The liability allegations remain unresolved.