McBrearty (a p.u.m. not so found) -v- North Western Health Board & ors [2010] IESC 27 (10 May 2010)

McBrearty (a p.u.m. not so found) -v- North Western Health Board & ors [2010] IESC 27 (10 May 2010)

The Supreme Court found that the delays in prosecution were not inordinate and inexcusable given the procedural complexities and actions of the defendants, and that the balance of justice favoured allowing the action to proceed, especially as medical records were complete and no witnesses were unavailable.

Citation
[2010] IESC 27
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Christopher McBrearty (a person of unsound mind not so found by inquiry suing by his mother and next friend, Anna McBrearty); Defendant/appellant: North Western Health Board (now Health Services Executive); Defendant: Andrew McFarlane; Defendant/appellant: John Glynn; Defendant/appellant: Jaspal Singh
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Civil Action / Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Dismissed first defendant's appeal; allowed third and fourth defendants' appeals; allowed plaintiff's cross-appeal.
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Delay in Prosecution, Striking Out Proceedings, Fair Trial Rights, Vicarious Liability
Tort Civil Procedure Medical Law Medical Negligence Delay in Prosecution Striking Out Proceedings Fair Trial Rights Vicarious Liability

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

Parties

Christopher McBrearty (a person of unsound mind not so found by inquiry suing by his mother and next friend, Anna McBrearty)

Plaintiff/respondent

North Western Health Board (now Health Services Executive)

Defendant/appellant

Andrew McFarlane

Defendant

John Glynn

Defendant/appellant

Jaspal Singh

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence Civil Action / Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in prosecution of medical negligence action was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be struck out for delay
  3. 3 Whether balance of justice favours striking out or allowing action to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the delays in prosecution were not inordinate and inexcusable given the procedural complexities and actions of the defendants, and that the balance of justice favoured allowing the action to proceed, especially as medical records were complete and no witnesses were unavailable.

Court Disposition

Dismissed first defendant's appeal; allowed third and fourth defendants' appeals; allowed plaintiff's cross-appeal.

Orders

  • Proceedings not struck out for delay.
  • Action permitted to proceed against all defendants except as discontinued.