(H.) (A Minor) & Anor v Adelaide and Meath Hospital Incorporating National Childrens Hospital & Anor [2020] IEHC 81 (24 February 2020)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> (H.) (A Minor) & Anor v Adelaide and Meath Hospital Incorporating National Childrens Hospital & Anor [2020] IEHC 81 (24 February 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2020/2020IEHC81.html Cite as: [2020] IEHC 81

ADELAIDE AND MEATH HOSPITAL DUBLIN INCORPORATING NATIONAL CHILDRENS

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 24 February 2020

1. This matter comes before the High Court by way of an application to approve a proposed

settlement of the within proceedings. The proceedings are fatal injuries proceedings

arising out of the death of the plaintiff’s mother in April 2012. The plaintiff is a minor,

and will not achieve her age of majority until 2023. The proceedings have been taken on

behalf of the minor plaintiff by her grandmother and next friend.

2. To protect the anonymity of the minor plaintiff, details of her name and address, and

those of her relatives, have been redacted in this judgment. Instead, these parties will be

referred to simply as (i)“the minor”; (ii) “the minor’s grandmother”; and (iii) “the minor’s

mother” or “the deceased” depending on the context. The use of these impersonal terms

should not be mistaken for any lack of empathy on the part of the court. The terms are

3. The proposed settlement is made on behalf of the first named defendant and is in the

sum of €325,000 (together with costs). The application to approve the settlement is

grounded on an affidavit sworn by the minor’s grandmother and next friend on 24

January 2020. The affidavit indicates that the grandmother, at that time, accepted the

recommendation of senior counsel that the settlement should be approved. However, by

the time the matter came on for hearing on Monday, 17 February 2020, the position of

the grandmother had changed, and she has explained to the court that she now considers

that the sum is insufficient. Having heard from the grandmother and from senior counsel

on behalf of the minor plaintiff, I indicated that I would reserve judgment until today’s

4. The minor’s mother (“the deceased”) had attended at the emergency departments of the

two hospitals named in the proceedings on various dates between the end of March 2012

5. In brief, the case made against the two hospitals is that the deceased had taken an

overdose of paracetamol on 31 March 2012, and that the paracetamol levels in her blood

had been misinterpreted by the hospital staff. In particular, the expert report indicates

that given her known chronic alcoholic dependency, the deceased should have been

treated as fulfilling the criteria for “high risk” management. This alleged error is said to

have resulted in a failure to treat her properly, and, ultimately, to her death.

6. An actuarial report has been obtained in support of the minor’s claim for loss of

dependency. The report has been prepared by Joseph G. Byrne & Sons Consulting

Actuaries Ltd., and is dated 10 October 2018. Given the concerns which have since been

raised by the minor’s grandmother as to the amount of the proposed settlement, it is

7. (It should be noted that the references in this judgment to the “assumptions” underlying

the actuarial report are intended as a reference to assumptions made on the basis of

instructions received by the actuaries from the instructing solicitors).

8. The capital value of the loss of dependency has been calculated on the basis that the

deceased’s financial contribution to the minor’s support would be based on social welfare

payments. The financial contributions are calculated as having a capital value of €92,650.

9. The financial value of the care and domestic assistance which the deceased would have

provided to the minor has been calculated separately. This has been done on the basis of

a sliding scale as follows. The care and assistance are valued at €400 per week to the

age of 12 years; €200 per week from the age of 12 to 18 years; and €100 per week from

the age of 18 to 23 years. The capital value is calculated at €210,000.

10. The aggregate of the two heads of loss of dependency is €302,650.

11. The special damages claimed on behalf of the minor are as follows.

12. These expenses have been vouched through an affidavit sworn by Padraig O’Donovan,

13. The Civil Liability Act 1961 (as amended) makes express provision for the recovery of

reasonable compensation for mental distress resulting from a wrongful death.

Specifically, under section 48 of the Act a judge is required to determine such amounts (if

any) as the judge shall consider reasonable compensation for mental distress resulting

from the death to each of the statutory dependants. The payment is referred to as the

14. As originally enacted under the Civil Liability Act 1961, this payment was capped at

IR£1,000. This sum has since been amended pursuant to the Civil Liability (Amendment)

Act 1996, and the revised amount is circa €25,400. This is the sum applicable to the

15. (The current maximum amount payable for mental distress is €35,000, as amended by

Ministerial Order. However, this revised figure only applies to dependants of those who

are fatally injured from 11 January 2014 onwards. The date of death of the deceased in

16. It is very much to the credit of the minor’s family that each of the statutory dependents

who would otherwise have been entitled to claim a share in the solatium have waived

their rights in this regard. More specifically, the deceased’s mother, father, brother and

half-brother have all executed waivers in favour of the minor. Put shortly, the family

members have all agreed that the full amount of the solatium (€25,400) should be paid to

17. If the assumptions underlying the actuarial report are correct—and this is disputed by the

minor’s grandmother—then the full value of the minor’s claim would be in the order of

18. The proposed settlement is for an overall sum of €325,000. Counsel for the minor

plaintiff, Mr Finbarr Fox, SC, has expressed the unequivocal view in both his written

opinion, which has been exhibited as part of the grandmother’s affidavit grounding the

application, and in his oral submissions, that the proposed settlement of €325,000 comes

close to the full value of the claim. The difference of some €15,000 is described as “very

modest and wholly acceptable” in all the circumstances of the case. Counsel also draws

attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reddy v. Bates [1983] I.R. 141 which

19. The minor’s grandmother made a helpful submission to me on 17 February 2020 setting

out her concerns in respect of the proposed settlement. This submission can be

summarised as follows. Whereas the grandmother accepts that her daughter (the

deceased) had not been in paid employment at the time of her death in April 2012, she

suggests that it would be an insult to describe any lone parent rearing a child as being

“unemployed”. Rearing a child is a job in itself. Moreover, the deceased had planned to

20. The grandmother and her husband are now responsible for rearing the minor. The

grandmother pointed out with frankness that her own health is not good, and that the

family are living in rented accommodation. The grandmother expressed a concern that

the minor should be secure in the event that anything were to happen to her (the

21. The grandmother emphasised that she is not seeking any damages on her own behalf and

has waived her claim to share in the solatium. This is so notwithstanding that the

22. It should be acknowledged from the outset that the grandmother’s sole objective is to

advance the best interests of the minor. Not only has the grandmother undertaken

responsibility for rearing the minor despite her own ill-health, she is also doing everything

in her power to ensure that proper provision is made for the minor’s future. All of this is

23. It is also to the credit of the minor’s wider family that each of the statutory dependents,

who would otherwise have been entitled to claim a share in the solatium (€25,400), have

waived their rights in this regard. More specifically, the grandmother herself; and the

deceased’s father, brother and half-brother have all executed waivers in favour of the

24. Given her selfless commitment to the minor, the concerns raised by the minor’s

grandmother as to the adequacy of the proposed settlement are deserving of careful

25. In deciding whether or not to approve a proposed settlement in favour of a minor in a

fatal injuries claim, a court must assess objectively the prospects of achieving a higher

award were the matter to go to trial. This exercise has to be performed on the basis of

more limited information than would be available to the trial judge. The court must

instead draw upon its knowledge of the risks inherent in litigation, and attempt to identify

potential weaknesses in the claim which may affect the outcome of the proceedings.

26. Applying this approach to the circumstances of the present case, it is necessary to

consider the robustness of the assumptions underlying the actuarial report. The

grandmother has criticised the assumption that her daughter would not have returned to

the workforce once the minor had commenced school. If this criticism is well-founded,

then the capital value of the claim might be understated. As set out earlier, the capital

value of the loss of dependency has been calculated on the basis that the deceased’s

financial contribution to the minor’s support would be based on social welfare payments.

If a figure for employed work were substituted for the social welfare payments, then the

27. As against this, however, regard must be had to the acknowledged health difficulties

which the deceased had suffered from. The claim against the hospitals is advanced on

the basis that their management of her treatment failed to take into account that the

deceased fulfilled the criteria for “high risk” management. More specifically, the expert

report prepared for the Coroner’s Court by a Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine

referred to the deceased as having a “long history of psychosocial disorder and of

attempted self-harm, in association with chronic alcohol dependency” and liver disease.

She is also described as having been “difficult to manage from a medical and psychosocial

28. These are factors which might, in principle, be relied upon at trial to suggest—not only

that the deceased would not have obtained employment—but also that the figures for

care and domestic assistance provided to the minor, as set out in the actuarial report,

might be overstated. It will be recalled that the care and assistance provided by the

deceased is valued at €400 per week to the age of 12 years. This is so notwithstanding

that the replies to particulars indicate that the minor was being looked after jointly by the

deceased and the grandmother. The consequence of the use of a multiplier in calculating

capital values is that even a modest revision downwards in these figures could reduce the

overall sum by a significant amount, to be measured in tens of thousands.

29. There is a significant risk that, if this action were to proceed to trial, the assumptions

underlying the actuarial report would be vulnerable to challenge. The final award might

30. It is simply not possible to say with any certainty what might have happened but for the

premature and tragic death of the minor plaintiff’s mother in April 2012. The most that

this court can do on an application to approve a proposed settlement is to assess the

prospects of achieving a higher award at trial. I am satisfied that the sum of €325,000

represents close to the full value of the claim, and that this figure is unlikely to be

bettered at trial. The assumptions underlying the actuarial report are reasonable and

realistic having regard to the factors referred to above. It would not be prudent to reject

the proposed settlement and to allow the matter to go to full trial in the hope that the

trial judge might take an optimistic view of the deceased’s employment prospects. To do

so would entail an unjustified risk of the minor receiving an award less than the €325,000

31. Having regard to all of the circumstances, the court will make an order approving the

32. One of the factors which a court may have to consider in deciding whether to approve a

proposed settlement is the risk, if any, which the plaintiff will face at trial in establishing

that the defendant is liable in tort. If there is a significant risk on liability, then it may be

appropriate to approve a settlement notwithstanding that it does not represent the full

monetary value of the claim. The court must balance the risk of the plaintiff failing to

establish liability—and thus receive no damages at all—against the prospect of their

succeeding and recovering the full value of their claim. Sometimes this balance is struck

by discounting the full value of the claim to reflect the risk on liability.

33. It is not necessary to address the issue of liability in the present case given that—for the

reasons set out under the previous heading above—the proposed settlement represents

close to the full value of the claim. This judgment does not make any finding—one way or

the other—on the question of whether the minor plaintiff would have been at risk in

34. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that the offer of settlement in the

present case has been made without any admission of liability. The first named

defendant has filed a full defence to the proceedings, and the proceedings are to be

35. For the reasons set out in this judgment, an order will be made approving the proposed

settlement of €325,000. The settlement is as between the plaintiff and the first named

defendant and has been reached without any admission of liability. The proceedings are

36. A sum of €12,553 is to be paid to Padraig O’Donovan & Company Solicitors upon their

undertaking to discharge the sums payable by way of special damages and fees. The

balance of the €325,000 is to be paid into court to the credit of this action and separate

37. I will also make an order for legal costs in favour of the plaintiff as against the first named

defendant, to reflect the fact that the terms of settlement provide for the payment of

costs. In default of agreement between the parties, the quantum of those legal costs is

to be measured by the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator under the Legal Services

Finbarr Fox, SC and Kristian Douglas instructed by Padraig O’Donovan & Company

Solicitors for the Plaintiff

Result: Settlement of 325,000 for loss of dependency approved.

High Court of Ireland Decisions