O'Carroll v Aras Slainte Ltd & Ors. (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 127 (20 January 2020)

O'Carroll v Aras Slainte Ltd & Ors. (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 127 (20 January 2020)

The trial judge was entitled to express disapproval of the line of cross-examination but making no order as to costs was disproportionate where the defendant had fully and successfully defended the claim; a more proportionate response was to award the defendant 50% of his costs.

Citation
[2020] IECA 127
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Helena O’Carroll; Defendant/appellant: Aras Slainte Limited; Defendant/appellant: VHI Investments Designated Activity Company t/a VHI Swiftcare Clinics; Defendant/appellant: Stefan Byrne; Defendant/appellant: St. James’s Hospital
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Costs
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Medical Negligence, Judicial Discretion, Cross Examination
Civil Procedure Costs Medical Negligence Judicial Discretion Cross Examination

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helena O’Carroll

Plaintiff/respondent

Aras Slainte Limited

Defendant/appellant

VHI Investments Designated Activity Company t/a VHI Swiftcare Clinics

Defendant/appellant

Stefan Byrne

Defendant/appellant

St. James’s Hospital

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to award costs to the successful defendant in a medical negligence action
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge was correct to depart from the principle that costs follow the event due to the conduct of cross-examination
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge properly exercised discretion in making no order as to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to express disapproval of the line of cross-examination but making no order as to costs was disproportionate where the defendant had fully and successfully defended the claim; a more proportionate response was to award the defendant 50% of his costs.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order set aside; appellant to recover 50% of costs incurred in defending the claim.