Micks-Wallace (A Minor) v Dunne (Approved) [2020] IECA 282 (19 October 2020)

Micks-Wallace (A Minor) v Dunne (Approved) [2020] IECA 282 (19 October 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that, given the procedural history and the late stage of the proceedings, the defendant had not justified the necessity for most of the additional discovery sought. The defendant failed to refine the request, explain why the material already obtained was insufficient, or why the rationale for the discovery was not advanced earlier. However, the Court allowed discovery of the clinical records of Dr. Brian Mulcahy and post-accident medical records from University Hospital Limerick, as these were specifically justified by the expert's need to assess the HEDS diagnosis and causation. The remainder of the application was refused as duplicative, inadequately justified,...

Citation
[2020] IECA 282
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Ciara Micks-Wallace (a minor, suing by her mother and next friend, Ann Micks); Defendant/appellant: Gabrielle Dunne
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Discovery Application
Outcome
Partially allowed; discovery ordered in limited categories, otherwise refused.
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Personal Injury Claims, Medical Records Disclosure, Causation in Tort
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Discovery of Documents Personal Injury Claims Medical Records Disclosure Causation in Tort

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ciara Micks-Wallace (a minor, suing by her mother and next friend, Ann Micks)

Plaintiff/respondent

Gabrielle Dunne

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Discovery Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to further discovery of the plaintiff's post-accident medical records after previous discovery and disclosure.
  2. 2 Whether the necessity and relevance requirements for additional discovery are met in the context of repeated applications.
  3. 3 Whether the timing and scope of the discovery sought is justified given the stage of proceedings and previous court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, given the procedural history and the late stage of the proceedings, the defendant had not justified the necessity for most of the additional discovery sought. The defendant failed to refine the request, explain why the material already obtained was insufficient, or why the rationale for the discovery was not advanced earlier. However, the Court allowed discovery of the clinical records of Dr. Brian Mulcahy and post-accident medical records from University Hospital Limerick, as these were specifically justified by the expert's need to assess the HEDS diagnosis and causation. The remainder of the application was refused as duplicative, inadequately justified,...

Court Disposition

Partially allowed; discovery ordered in limited categories, otherwise refused.

Orders

  • Order for discovery of clinical records of Dr. Brian Mulcahy relating to the plaintiff, except for material already discovered or disclosed.
  • Order for discovery of post-accident medical records from University Hospital Limerick relating to the plaintiff, except for material already discovered or disclosed.