Gough v. Neary & Anor [2003] IESC 39 (3 July 2003)

Gough v. Neary & Anor [2003] IESC 39 (3 July 2003)

The plaintiff's claim is statute-barred because she had knowledge of the injury, its significance, and its attribution to the defendant's act soon after the operation; knowledge of the unnecessary or negligent nature of the procedure is not required to trigger the limitation period under s.2(1) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991. Concealment or fraud was not specifically pleaded, so s.71 does not apply.

Citation
[2003] IESC 39
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Alison Gough; Defendant/appellant: Michael Neary; Defendant/appellant: Basil Cronin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; plaintiff's claim statute-barred.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Date of Knowledge, Equitable Fraud, Medical Malpractice
Medical Negligence Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Statute of Limitations Date of Knowledge Equitable Fraud Medical Malpractice

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alison Gough

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Neary

Defendant/appellant

Basil Cronin

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from an allegedly unnecessary hysterectomy was statute-barred under the Statute of Limitations
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's date of knowledge for limitation purposes was postponed due to concealment or fraud
  3. 3 Whether knowledge of the necessity or wrongfulness of the procedure is required to trigger the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim is statute-barred because she had knowledge of the injury, its significance, and its attribution to the defendant's act soon after the operation; knowledge of the unnecessary or negligent nature of the procedure is not required to trigger the limitation period under s.2(1) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991. Concealment or fraud was not specifically pleaded, so s.71 does not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; plaintiff's claim statute-barred.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court awarding damages to the plaintiff set aside.
  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed as statute-barred.