In a recent ruling[1], the Irish High Court was asked to examine
the extent to which a plaintiff was required to respond to a notice
for particulars. The judge examined how the obligation is
affected by legislation that requires plaintiffs to provide
detailed information 'up front' in a personal injuries
summons. The judge was critical of defendant solicitors who,
despite this legislation, persist in the "habitual and
indiscriminate" use of notices for particulars to elicit
unnecessary information from plaintiffs.
In this case, the defendants are being sued by the plaintiff for
damages for personal injuries she sustained after she fell from an
examination couch. The case is, therefore, a personal
injuries case and not a medical negligence action. The
defendants sought detailed particulars from the plaintiff. In
his ruling, the judge clarified that the purpose of particulars is
to convey "in broad outline" the nature of the
case a party has to meet, but not the nature of the evidence the
other party will use at trial. Against this backdrop, he
refused, for example, to order the plaintiff to give a detailed
narrative of the accident. He also refused to order the
plaintiff to disclose other "irrelevant"
information, such as whether she has legal cost insurance.
Taking a strict stance, the judge stated that requests for
particulars have been "allowed to proliferate in many
areas of legal practice far beyond the boundaries"
envisaged, allowing defendants to obtain irrelevant information as
well as elicit evidence which should be dealt with at trial.
He concluded that litigators have been displaying "too
much of the lion and not enough of the fox" when it comes
to raising particulars. He stated that a shift towards a more
"discriminating approach", avoiding the
"unnecessary and the irrelevant", will result in
genuine questioning aimed at clarifying the exact nature of the
case to be answered by a party.
Though this case has been met with some enthusiasm by plaintiff
firms in medical negligence cases, previous High Court decisions
have clarified that the nature of medical negligence actions
necessitate detailed information to be given by plaintiffs.
Therefore, it remains to be seen whether the court will adopt the
same strict approach when it comes to medical negligence
disputes.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[1] Agnes Armstrong v Sean Moffatt & Ors [2013] IEHC 148