Plaintiff vs Defendant

This clinical negligence case involved issues of court reviews, directions, and the consequences of non-compliance with an unless order.

TLDR:

• The plaintiff sought to set aside a judgment due to non-compliance with an unless order.
• The case involved delays in treating the plaintiff's appendicitis, resulting in severe complications.
• The court emphasized the importance of complying with unless orders and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

The plaintiff's claim arose from a delay in treating his appendicitis on or around 26 June 2017, which led to severe complications. The writ was issued on 25 June 2020, and a letter of claim was served on 21 September 2021.

The case was reviewed three times as part of the case management process. During the first review on 15 September 2021, the court directed that a statement of claim be served within 16 weeks. The second review on 29 June 2022 revealed non-compliance with previous directions, and the plaintiff was given 12 weeks to serve the statement of claim, along with a chronology of steps taken to secure an expert report.

At the third review on 3 October 2022, the plaintiff's solicitor was absent, and the court issued an unless order, stating that the plaintiff's action would be struck out if the statement of claim was not served within four weeks of the order's service. The order was served on 10 November 2022, but the plaintiff failed to comply, leading to the case being struck out on 8 December 2022.

The plaintiff argued that she was unaware of the unless order due to her absence from the office. However, the court found that the order was served properly and that the plaintiff's solicitor had ample time to comply or seek extensions.

The court discussed the legal principles surrounding unless orders, citing various authorities. The court emphasized that unless orders are a last resort and must be complied with to avoid sanctions. The court found that the plaintiff's non-compliance was not intentional but resulted from procedural inefficiencies and delays.

The court concluded that the unless order was regular and properly obtained, and there were no grounds to set it aside. The court also declined to extend the time for compliance, citing the need to enforce compliance with court rules and orders.

The court highlighted the importance of robust case management in clinical negligence cases and the need to minimize delays and procedural inefficiencies. The court ultimately refused the plaintiff's application and awarded costs to the defendant.

Legal representatives: Mr. Ciaran McCollum BL for the plaintiff, Mr. Michael Lavery BL for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: Master Harvey

Case Citation Reference: [2023] NICA 72