O'Donovan -v- Lordan & Ors [2013] IEHC 558 (05 December 2013)

O'Donovan -v- Lordan & Ors [2013] IEHC 558 (05 December 2013)

The court clarified that its prior order entitles the plaintiff's medical adviser to ask relevant medical questions of the defendant concerning the pleaded defence of automatism, in the presence of the defendant's medical practitioner, and that refusal to answer such questions is not permitted under the order.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 558
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael O'Donovan; First Defendant: Gerard Lordan; Second Defendant: Agriban Limited trading as Michael Hurley Farm Machinery; Third Defendant: Laurence Quinn; Fourth Defendant: Kilmoss Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Motion for Clarification and Enforcement of Prior Court Order
Outcome
Clarification of prior order granted; submissions on form of order to be heard; no immediate striking out of defence ordered.
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Medical Examination in Litigation, Defence of Automatism, Discovery and Particulars, Compliance With Court Orders
Tort Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Medical Examination in Litigation Defence of Automatism Discovery and Particulars Compliance With Court Orders

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael O'Donovan

Plaintiff

Gerard Lordan

First Defendant

Agriban Limited trading as Michael Hurley Farm Machinery

Second Defendant

Laurence Quinn

Third Defendant

Kilmoss Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Motion for Clarification and Enforcement of Prior Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is required to answer medical questions posed by the plaintiff's medical adviser during a court-ordered examination
  2. 2 Whether the defence of automatism can be maintained if the defendant fails to comply with the court order for medical examination

Ratio Decidendi

The court clarified that its prior order entitles the plaintiff's medical adviser to ask relevant medical questions of the defendant concerning the pleaded defence of automatism, in the presence of the defendant's medical practitioner, and that refusal to answer such questions is not permitted under the order.

Court Disposition

Clarification of prior order granted; submissions on form of order to be heard; no immediate striking out of defence ordered.

Orders

  • Clarification that the plaintiff's medical adviser may ask relevant medical questions during the examination as per the prior order.
  • No invasive procedures to be conducted.