Judgment: 2023-09-15 · Court archive

High Court dismisses 2009 personal injury claim over delay and discovery failure

The court found the delay in pursuing the claim was inordinate and inexcusable. It gave an indicative view on costs, with final orders and costs submissions listed for October 10, 2023.

High Court · [2023] IEHC 524

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Stephanie Abrams (Plaintiff)
  • South Tipperary General Hospital (Defendant)
  • Ms Justice Bolger
What

The court found the delay in pursuing the claim was inordinate and inexcusable. It gave an indicative view on costs, with final orders and costs submissions listed for October 10, 2023.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • South Tipperary General Hospital
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has dismissed a personal injury action against South Tipperary General Hospital, finding that the plaintiff’s delay in progressing the case was inordinate and inexcusable.

The High Court has dismissed a personal injury action against South Tipperary General Hospital, finding that the plaintiff’s delay in progressing the case was inordinate and inexcusable.

In a decision delivered on September 15, 2023, Ms Justice Bolger granted the hospital’s application to dismiss the proceedings under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The action, issued in November 2009, concerned injuries Stephanie Abrams claimed to have suffered during the delivery of her child in November 2007.

The court reviewed a history of delays and an outstanding discovery request. The plaintiff delivered replies to particulars in December 2015, after the hospital had requested them in August 2012. The hospital obtained a discovery order in November 2018. In May 2019, the plaintiff provided incomplete copies of medical records; a request for further information remained unanswered. The judgment records that the plaintiff took no steps to progress the litigation after the hospital’s dismissal motion was filed in June 2021.

Abrams, who represented herself at the hearing, said she was ready to make discovery and wanted to bring the case to trial promptly. She blamed her former solicitors for delay and disputed statements in an affidavit from her former solicitor. The judge did not find her submissions on that dispute convincing and accepted the affidavit’s contents. The judgment says the plaintiff did not identify or exhibit documents to support her stated readiness to make discovery.

The judge concluded that the delay was not excusable and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal. She accepted the hospital’s submission that oral evidence would be needed and said the passage of time would make that evidence more fragile and unreliable. The court also noted that the plaintiff had provided no concrete assurances that the case could be made ready for trial.

The court’s decision dismissed the proceedings. Its view on costs was indicative: the judge considered that the hospital, having succeeded on its motion, was entitled to costs against the plaintiff under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. The parties were invited to make submissions on costs and final orders at a further hearing listed for 10:30am on October 10, 2023. The source does not state what final costs order, if any, was subsequently made.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review