Sugg v O'Keeffe and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: GEOGHEGAN J.
• Judgment Date: 14 October 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] IESC 92
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 14 October 2005

[2005] IESC 92

THE SUPREME COURT

Geoghegan J.

McCracken J.

Macken J.

275/03

SUGG v O'KEEFFE

SUGG

v.

O'KEEFEE & ANOR

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Dismissal of proceedings

Inherent jurisdiction - Failure to disclose cause of action - Medical negligence - Lay litigant - Failure to obtain expert evidence showing negligence - Appeal dismissed; proceedings dismissed (275/03- SC - 14/10/2005) [2005] IESC 92

Sugg v O'Keeffe

the High Court made an order striking out the plaintiff’s action against the defendant for alleged negligence surrounding the death of his wife. The proceedings were not supported by any report from a doctor stating that the plaintiff had a stateable cause of action. The plaintiff appealed against that order to the Supreme Court.

Held by the Supreme Court in refusing the appeal that his negligence claim was an abuse of process given that he had no expert medical opinion supporting the claim.

Reporter: P.C.

1 JUDGMENT (ex tempore) delivered on the 14th day of October 2005 by GEOGHEGAN J.

GEOGHEGAN J.

2 This is an appeal brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Sugg, in this action against an order of Mr. Justice de Valera in the High Court, dismissing his action which essentially is a medical negligence action. He is unhappy about that terminology. It is more a question of nomenclature. In legal language, it is essentially a medical negligence action. The statement of claim in the action was struck out and then the action was dismissed. That was in these circumstances. The defendants brought a motion to strike out the action as not showing any cause of action effectively. That got adjourned from time to time. There were all sorts of opportunities given by Mr. Justice de Valera to Mr. Sugg but ultimately, Mr. Justice de Valera refused an adjournment and, in a sense, nothing much on this appeal has turned on that actual refusal of the adjournment though that is what in fact happened. It was in circumstances where, apparently, Mr. Justice de Valera was given some indication that an English solicitor might take up the case. It then emerged there was really no named or no actual English solicitor in the background at all. Obviously, Mr. Justice de Valera regarded the matter as far too speculative. The motion went on and Mr. Justice de Valera then dismissed the action on foot of the...