O'Sullivan v Ireland, the Attorney General & ors [2019] IESC 33 (23 May 2019)

O'Sullivan v Ireland, the Attorney General & ors [2019] IESC 33 (23 May 2019)

Time began to run for limitation purposes when the plaintiff received broad knowledge of the acts or omissions alleged to constitute negligence, which occurred upon receipt of expert medical advice; the claim was issued within two years of that date and is not statute-barred.

Citation
[2019] IESC 33
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Oliver O'Sullivan; Defendant/appellant: Ireland; Defendant/appellant: The Attorney General; Defendant/appellant: The Minister for Health and Children; Defendant/appellant: Health Service Executive; Defendant/appellant: Bon Secours Health System Limited trading as Bon Secours Hospital
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/medical Negligence / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court and Court of Appeal decisions upheld.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Date of Knowledge, Personal Injury, Hospital Acquired Infection, Expert Evidence
Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Medical Negligence Statute of Limitations Date of Knowledge Personal Injury Hospital Acquired Infection Expert Evidence

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 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver O'Sullivan

Plaintiff/respondent

Ireland

Defendant/appellant

The Attorney General

Defendant/appellant

The Minister for Health and Children

Defendant/appellant

Health Service Executive

Defendant/appellant

Bon Secours Health System Limited trading as Bon Secours Hospital

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/medical Negligence / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does the limitation period begin to run for personal injury actions under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991?
  2. 2 What constitutes 'knowledge' for the purposes of s.2 of the 1991 Act in medical negligence cases?
  3. 3 Did the plaintiff take all reasonable steps to obtain and act on expert advice regarding the alleged negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

Time began to run for limitation purposes when the plaintiff received broad knowledge of the acts or omissions alleged to constitute negligence, which occurred upon receipt of expert medical advice; the claim was issued within two years of that date and is not statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court and Court of Appeal decisions upheld.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim may proceed; limitation issue resolved in favour of plaintiff.
  • No order as to liability; only limitation issue decided.