The High Court has rejected most of the details sought by three defendants from a woman bringing a personal injury claim over an alleged fall at Ballina Medical Centre, while requiring her to answer questions about other injuries or claims and clarify one part of her case.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the judgment on 28 March 2013. The application concerned the scope of a notice for particulars served by the defendants. The defendants had not yet filed a defence, pending resolution of the dispute over what information the plaintiff had to provide.
The plaintiff alleges that on 15 May 2009 she slipped from an examination couch while moving from lying to sitting after an examination at the medical centre. She says she fractured her right hip, underwent a hemi-arthroplasty, spent a week in hospital and recuperated for a further four weeks. She also attributes a right foot drop and other consequences to the incident. The judge stressed that this was an accident claim alleging negligence and breach of duty, not a medical negligence claim.
The judgment said the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 requires detailed information in personal injury pleadings, changing how courts should approach requests for further particulars. The judge said particulars should clarify the case a party must meet, not serve as a means of interrogating an opponent or obtaining evidence that belongs in witness testimony.
The court dismissed requests concerning legal costs insurance, the time of the incident, ambulance arrangements, witnesses, a narrative account of the fall, further negligence details, treatment and prognosis. It also rejected requests about social welfare entitlements and special damages as premature or unnecessary. The plaintiff had identified €500 in travel expenses and €100 in sundry and miscellaneous expenses, with further details to follow when available.
The judge found that requests about injuries, treatment or claims before and after the incident fell within section 11 of the 2004 Act. He ordered the plaintiff to answer them insofar as she had not already done so. The court also dismissed a request for particulars of the statutory duty allegation, but required the plaintiff to correspond with the defendants to confirm that her claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995 was that she was a visitor to the centre and that the defendants breached their common duty of care to her as a visitor.
The judgment addressed the application for particulars; it did not determine liability or the underlying injury claim.