Roe v The Blood Transfusion Service Board

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Miss Justice Laffoy
• Judgment Date: 14 February 1996
• Neutral Citation: 1996 WJSC-HC 2291
• Docket Number: [1995 No. 4863P],No 4863p/1995
• Court: High Court
• Date: 14 February 1996

ROE v. BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE BOARD

BETWEEN

BRIDGET M. ROE

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE BOARD, THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH,THE NATIONAL DRUGS ADVISORY BOARD, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEYGENERAL

DEFENDANTS

1996 WJSC-HC 2291

No 4863p/1995

THE HIGH COURT

1 Judgment of Miss Justice Laffoydelivered on 14th February, 1996.

2 In these proceedings, the Plaintiff claims damages for disability, personal injuries, loss, damage and expense which she alleges she sustained and incurred by reason of the wrongdoing of the Defendants whom she alleges, in broad terms, were responsible for her being treated with infected Anti-D Immunoglobulin in consequence of which she has contracted the Hepatitis C virus.

3 In her Statement of Claim delivered 28th July, 1995 the Plaintiff pleaded that, for the purposes of these proceedings, she has adopted the name "Bridget M. Roe" and that her address, for the purposes for these proceedings, is care of her Solicitors, Ivor Fitzpatrick & Co., Pepper Cannister House, Mount Street Crescent, Dublin 2. In its Defence, the first named Defendant has pleaded that it does not admit that these proceedings are properly constituted. In their Defence, the second, fourth and fifth named Defendants have pleaded that the Plaintiff is not entitledfor the purposes of these proceedings to adopt the name Bridget M. Roe, or any assumed name, and in consequence these proceedings are not properly constituted. The third named Defendant does not object to the Plaintiff prosecuting these proceedings under an assumed name.

4 By Motion on notice to the Defendants the Plaintiff has sought an Order permitting the Plaintiff to maintain these proceedings using the alias "Bridget M. Roe". The application is grounded on the Affidavit of the Plaintiff's Solicitor, Susan R. Stapleton, in which Ms. Stapleton avers that the Plaintiff wishes to maintain the action using an alias because she desires to protect her privacy, that the protection of her privacy in the proceedings is not merely a matter of preventing embarrassment to her, but is a matter of preventing real injustice to her. Ms. Stapleton further avers that from her experience of dealing with the Plaintiff's case and a large number of other similar cases, she is aware that persons who are known in the community to carry the Hepatitis C virus are subject to invidious discrimination. Many women, she avers, have found that when neighbours and friends become aware of their infection, both they and their children can become sociallyostracised.

5 The true identity of the Plaintiff and her own home address have been disclosed to all the Defendants in the proceedings, as has a considerable body of personal information relating to the Plaintiff and her family. In Ms. Stapleton's Affidavit there are exhibited copies of two letters dated 27th September, 1995 to the Solicitors for the Defendants, other than the third named Defendant, which disclose the Plaintiff's name and her address. Accordingly,the Plaintiff's true identity and her address are on the record of this Court. Counsel for the Plaintiff acknowledges that the trial of the Plaintiff's action will have to be held in public and that the Plaintiff will have to give oral testimony in open Court. All she seeks is to be allowed to prosecute this litigation anonymously using an alias.

6 ...