O'Sullivan v O'Riordain & Anor (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 165 (26 June 2023)

O'Sullivan v O'Riordain & Anor (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 165 (26 June 2023)

The High Court erred in refusing certain interrogatories on the basis that the defence admitted the relevant facts or that the hospital records sufficed, when the defence was uninformative and the records were allegedly incomplete. The appellate court found that, given the defendants' blanket denial and lack of particulars, the plaintiff was entitled to broader interrogatories, subject to reformulation for clarity and amenability to yes/no answers. The court intervened to allow additional interrogatories to ensure fair disposal and cost savings.

Citation
[2023] IECA 165
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ashling O’Sullivan (a minor) suing by her mother and next friend Grace O’Sullivan; Defendant/respondent: Michael O’Riordan; Defendant/respondent: Mercy University Hospital Cork
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence/personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order on Interrogatories
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Pleadings, Personal Injuries, Costs, Pre Trial Disclosure
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Interrogatories Pleadings Personal Injuries Costs Pre Trial Disclosure

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashling O’Sullivan (a minor) suing by her mother and next friend Grace O’Sullivan

Plaintiff/appellant

Michael O’Riordan

Defendant/respondent

Mercy University Hospital Cork

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence/personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order on Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing liberty to deliver 21 of 29 interrogatories sought by the plaintiff in a clinical negligence action.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' form of pleading justified broader interrogatories.
  3. 3 Whether the offer to admit hospital records obviated the need for interrogatories.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in refusing certain interrogatories on the basis that the defence admitted the relevant facts or that the hospital records sufficed, when the defence was uninformative and the records were allegedly incomplete. The appellate court found that, given the defendants' blanket denial and lack of particulars, the plaintiff was entitled to broader interrogatories, subject to reformulation for clarity and amenability to yes/no answers. The court intervened to allow additional interrogatories to ensure fair disposal and cost savings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Additional interrogatories permitted as reformulated by the Court of Appeal.
  • Plaintiff to have costs of the appeal and the High Court hearing unless defendants submit otherwise within 14 days.