Moorehouse v Governor of Wheatfield Prison and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice John Murray,Mr. Justice John MacMenamin
Judgment Date05 March 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] IESC 21
CourtSupreme Court
Date05 March 2015
Moorehouse v Governor of Wheatfield Prison & Ors

BETWEEN:

FELIX MOOREHOUSE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AND

THE GOVERNOR OF WHEATFIELD PRISON, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY & LAW REFORM, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2015] IESC 21

Murray J.

MacMenamin J.

Laffoy J.

[Record No. 128/2014]

THE SUPREME COURT

Negligence – Damages – Personal injuries – Appellant seeking leave to make amendments to personal injuries summons – Whether the application for the amendments should have been allowed by the High Court

Facts: The appellant, Mr Moorehouse, suffered serious injuries, involving the amputation of three fingers of his left hand, when he was using a guillotine steel cutter to cut metal, as part of a training programme in Wheatfield Prison in November, 2008. The High Court refused the appellant leave to make two amendments to his personal injuries summons, which would have added further allegations of negligence in his claim for damages against the respondents, the Governor of Wheatfield Prison, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General. The High Court, at the same time, granted leave to the plaintiff in respect of two other proposed amendments. One of the grounds upon which the High Court refused leave to make the amendments in issue was that the scope of the discretion given to the court, pursuant to Order 28.1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, to amend pleadings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, must be viewed and modified having regard to certain provisions of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004, and in particular those of Order 1A (S.I. 248/2005) adopted to give effect to those provisions. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment, submitting that Order 28.1 continues to apply to a personal injuries summons as it traditionally has in accordance with established principles.

Held Held by Murray J that, having considered the primary issue in the appeal to be whether the Act of 2004, and Order 1A of the Rules of the Superior Courts, should be interpreted so that the discretion of the Court to amend pleadings under Order 28.1 is different and more limited in personal injuries actions than it is for pleadings generally, the appellant was correct in his submissions. Murray J further decided, having considered whether in all the circumstances of the case the application for the two amendments should have been allowed by the High Court, in favour of the appellant. Murray J held that Order 1A.6 and Order 28.1 are separate and distinct rules and have different purposes. Accordingly he was of the view that there was no basis for concluding that any conflict arises between the provision of Order 28, Rule 1, as traditionally interpreted and applied, and any provision of Order 1A. Since he concluded that Order 1A does not, and was not intended to, modify the application of Order 28.1, Murray J held that the appellants were correct in submitting that the trial judge erred in law in holding that she should exercise her discretion under that Rule as regards a personal injuries summons in a manner different to how it would be exercised in the case of pleadings other than such a summons. Accordingly, the appellant”s application for amendment of the two amendments fell to be determined under Order 28, Rule 1, in accordance with established principles. On that question Murray J agreed with the Supreme Court judgment of MacMenamin J; the only appropriate modification, in the light of Order 1A, was that the amendments allowed should be verified by affidavit.

Murray J held that the Supreme Court should allow the appeal and granted liberty to the plaintiff to make the two contested amendments to the personal injuries summons.

Appeal allowed.

1

Judgment of Mr. Justice John Murray dated the 5th day of March, 2015

2

Judgment of Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 5th day of March, 2015

3

Judgment delivered by Murray J & MacMenamin J

4

1. This appeal arises from an order of the High Court refusing the appellant leave to make two amendments to his personal injuries summons, which would have added further allegations of negligence in his claim for damages against the respondents. The High Court, at the same time, granted leave to the plaintiff in respect of two other proposed amendments. The claim arises from serious injuries, involving the amputation of three fingers of his left hand, when he was using a guillotine steel cutter to cut metal, as part of a training programme in Wheatfield Prison on 27 November, 2008. The full facts and circumstances are set out in the judgment of MacMenamin J., including the history of these proceedings and the terms of the proposed amendments to the personal injuries summons.

5

2. In order to place the issue in context, however, I refer to the terms of the two amendments which are still in issue (with the amended text underlined):

6

(a) "7. On or about the 27th day of November, 2008, whilst the plaintiff was an inmate in Wheatfield Prison, in the County of the City of Dublin, which said prisoner was under the control of the first named defendant, and whilst the plaintiff was under the influence of a controlled drug. to wit methadone, administered by an agent of the first named defendant, the plaintiff was participating in a training programme where he was cutting metal with a guillotine steel cutter, the plaintiffs left hand became caught in the cutter, in consequence whereof the plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries, loss and damage and expense."

7

(b) "D. Permitting the plaintiff to operate at the machine when they knew or ought to have known that it was unsafe and dangerous for him so to do, in general terms, and specifically allowing and permitting the plaintiff to operate at the machine when they knew or ought to have known that he was under the influence of a controlled drug, to wit methadone."

8

3. One of the grounds upon which the High Court refused leave to make the amendments in issue was that the scope of the discretion given to the court, pursuant to Order 28.1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, to amend pleadings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, must be viewed and modified having regard to certain provisions of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004, and in particular those of Order 1A ( S.I. 248/2005) adopted to give effect to those provisions. The relevant provisions regulate in a special way the nature and content of pleadings in personal injuries actions, as compared with other causes of action, and provide for affidavits from each party verifying their pleadings. The Act has other wide ranging provisions specific to personal injuries claims, for example, the consequence of giving misleading or false evidence, but we are not concerned with these in this case.

9

4. At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal, the Court decided to allow the appeal and granted liberty to the plaintiff to make the two contested amendments to the personal injuries summons. Today the judgments of the Court set out the reasons for that decision.

10

5. A primary issue in this appeal is whether the Act of 2004, and Order 1A of the Rules of the Superior Courts, should be interpreted so that the discretion of the Court to amend pleadings under Order 28.1 is different and more limited in personal injuries actions than it is for pleadings generally.

11

6. The appellants being correct, as I explain in this judgment, in their submission that Order 28.1 continues to apply to a personal injuries summons as it traditionally has in accordance with established principles, then the next question is whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the application for the two amendments in question should have been allowed by the High Court.

12

7. I address the interpretative issue in this concurring judgment, and, having decided it in favour of the appellants for the reasons set out herein, I agree with the judgment of MacMenamin J., and in particular why the two amendments should, in the circumstances, be allowed for the reasons which he gives.

The Interpretation of Order 28.1 Issue
13

8. There are two essential elements in the submissions of the respondents as to why the discretion to amend pleadings under Order 28.1 should be applied differently, or not applied at all, to personal injuries summons in contrast to other pleadings. These are:

14

(a) Certain provisions of the Act of 2004, and Order 1A of the Rules of the Superior Courts, requires that pleadings in personal injuries actions, in this case the personal injuries summons, must contain complete particulars of a claim and of each allegation, assertion or plea comprising that claim. In addition, pleadings must be verified by affidavit. This new pleadings regime means that the scope of the discretion of the court under Order 28, Rule 1, to amend pleadings in a personal injuries action must be interpreted in a more limited fashion;

15

(b) In any event, there is a conflict between the provisions of Order 1A and an application of Order 28.1 in accordance with the "historical" discretion which has been exercised under the latter Order. Order 1A prohibits the application of any Rule which conflicts with its terms. Accordingly, by reason of the new pleading regime for a personal injuries summons, the scope of the discretion to be exercised by the courts under Order 28.1 is more limited as regards amendments to such a summons, in contrast to pleadings in other forms of action.

Relevant Provisions
16

9. Section 13(1)(a) of the Civil Liability & Courts Act, 2004 provides, as regards pleadings, that they shall:

"In the case of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Habte v The Minister for Justice and Equality ; Habte v The Minister for Justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 February 2019
    ...Egan McGrath, Delany and McGrath on Civil Procedure, 4th ed. (Dublin, 2018) at p. 283 ff., Moorehouse v. Governor of Wheatfield Prison [2015] IESC 21 (Unreported, Supreme Court, 5th March, 2015). In Moorehouse, at paras. 39 to 42, MacMenamin J. endorsed the point that the interests of just......
  • Sherwin v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 27 January 2023
    ...to amend is intended to be liberal ([ Croke v. Waterford Crystal Ltd. [2004] IESC 97 [2005] 2 I.R. 383 [2005] 1 I.L.R.M. 321], [ ( [2015] IESC 21 Moorehouse v. Governor of Wheatfield Prison Unreported, Supreme Court, 5th March, 2015)]); (ii). in considering the amendment of pleadings in any......
  • B.S (India) v The Minister for Justice and Equality (No.3)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 October 2020
    ...Delany and McGrath on Civil Procedure, 4th ed., (Dublin, Round Hall, 2018), at p. 283, ff. In Moorehouse v. Governor of Wheatfield Prison [2015] IESC 21, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 5th March, 2015), at paras. 39-42, MacMenamin J. (Murray and Laffoy JJ. concurring), endorsed the point that ......
  • Stapleton v an Bord Pleanála and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 23 June 2023
    ...[2005] 2 I.R. 383, [2005] 1 I.L.R.M. 321, [2004] 11 JIC 2605, [2005] 7 JIC 0701, Moorehouse v. Governor of Wheatfield Prison and Others [2015] IESC 21, 2015 WJSC-SC 18608, ( [2015] 3 JIC 0502 Unreported, Supreme Court, 5th March, 21 . The point made in Croke about the approach to amendments......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT