McInerney [Minor] v Kildare County Council (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

Judge Barr delivered judgment on 13 February 2026. The action was brought on behalf of a minor (the Plaintiff) by his mother as next friend (Plaintiff's Mother) against Company A. The Plaintiff alleges that on 15 June 2015, at about five years of age, he climbed and fell from a roughly 3m wall at a halting site (the Halting Site) after accessing the top via mounds of earth, rubbish and debris banked against the wall, and that the top of the wall was unsafe. The Plaintiff sustained a skull fracture demonstrated by a CT scan taken on the night of the accident.

Personal injury proceedings began by summons issued 8 March 2017. The defence filed on 8 October 2019 put liability and quantum in issue and pleaded, among other matters, possible third-party damage to a fence and contributory negligence by the Plaintiff's parents for inadequate supervision. By consent the Defendant amended its defence on 19 May 2025 to add pleas alleging exaggeration of special damages, alleged payments to secure a witness's attendance (based on material from The Police) and an alternative causation account involving interaction with a horse or pony.

Two interlocutory motions were before the court: (1) the Plaintiff's motion (22 May 2025) seeking a modular trial (liability first) and that the trial judge decide whether quantum should be interim or whole-life; and (2) the Defendant's motion (25 November 2024) seeking full particulars of the Plaintiff's claim for special damages on a whole-life basis.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should direct a modular trial (liability to be tried as a separate preliminary module) or order a unitary trial.
2. Whether, if a modular trial is directed, the assessment of damages should proceed on an interim basis or on a whole-life basis.
3. Whether the Plaintiff must provide full particulars of his claim for special damages on a whole-life basis and respond to a specific request from the Defendant concerning housing engagement.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• Attorney Tracey submitted that liability issues were extensive and principally factual; a modular trial with liability determined first would conserve court time and costs because if liability failed the case would end without needing complex quantum evidence.
• The Plaintiff proposed that relatively few witnesses (five witnesses of fact and one engineer) would be required for the liability module, whereas many expert witnesses would be engaged primarily in quantum.
• It was submitted that, given the Plaintiff's limited financial means and difficult social background, a modular approach with liability first would allow recovery of funds enabling later engagement of experts for quantum if liability were found.
• The Plaintiff sought an interim assessment of damages (past and five years into the future) on the basis that future disability and care needs may not be ascertainable with precision until the Plaintiff attains adulthood.

Defendant's Arguments

• Attorney McCarthy submitted that issues of fraud, collusion and exaggeration permeate both liability and quantum; credibility of the Plaintiff's parents and of a material witness would be central across both liability and quantum.
• The Defendant relied on evidence (including recordings obtained by The Police and medical and care reports) suggesting payments to a witness and inconsistent accounts given to medical practitioners; full testing of credibility required cross-examination across the whole case.
• It was argued that a modular trial would either prevent effective cross-examination on issues relevant to both modules or force the Defendant to call witnesses twice (once in liability, again in quantum), producing inefficiency and prejudice.
• The Defendant sought particulars of special damages on a whole-life basis and a response to a letter about whether the Plaintiff's family had engaged with Company A concerning social housing, given substantial accommodation claims.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began from the default position of a unitary trial and applied the McCann-derived test: (1) whether issues for a preliminary module can be decided in isolation; (2) whether there is a clear saving of court time and costs; (3) whether prejudice would result; and (4) whether the application is tactical or genuinely assists resolution.

The court found that credibility concerns—allegations of fraud, collusion and deliberate exaggeration by the Plaintiff's parents and possible payments to witnesses—permeated both liability and quantum. Because credibility issues were central across the entire case, separating liability into a preliminary module would either (a) restrict the Defendant's ability to test credibility fully (prejudicing its defence), or (b) require the Defendant to call many witnesses twice (once in liability, once in quantum), producing waste and increased cost.

The court accepted the Defendant's contention that forensic disadvantage and prejudice would follow from a modular trial in these circumstances. While it acknowledged the Plaintiff's financial limitations, it concluded that any financial advantage to the Plaintiff from modularisation would be outweighed by the prejudice to the Defendant and the risk of depriving the Defendant of a fair hearing. Accordingly, the court concluded a modular trial was not in the interests of justice and refused that relief.

On the assessment basis (interim v whole-life), the court considered whether an accurate prognosis of future disability could be given. It reviewed the Plaintiff's medical evidence (notably the report of Doctor O'Rourke dated 24 September 2023) and found that the Plaintiff's level of injury and ongoing disability had been determined to an extent permitting a whole-life assessment. Therefore the court refused the Plaintiff's request for interim-only assessment, while noting the trial judge retains power to revisit assessment if necessary.

Finally, because the court directed that damages be assessed on a whole-life basis it held the Defendant was entitled to formal particulars of the special damages claimed. The court ordered the Plaintiff to furnish full particulars of special damages to date and into the future within eight weeks of perfection, and to reply to the Defendant's solicitor's letter dated 24 October 2024 (regarding engagement with housing supports) within eight weeks of perfection.

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings: The court refused the Plaintiff's application for a modular trial and refused the Plaintiff's request that damages be assessed on an interim basis. The court granted the Defendant's request that the Plaintiff provide full particulars of his claim for special damages on a whole-life basis and ordered a reply to the Defendant's housing enquiry.

Implications:

• The trial is to proceed as a unitary trial; liability and quantum will be tried together in the ordinary course unless the trial judge later directs otherwise.
• Damages will be assessed on a whole-life basis at trial, subject to the trial judge's overriding jurisdiction to revisit the issue if appropriate.
• The Plaintiff must furnish full particulars of special damages and respond to the Defendant's housing enquiry within eight weeks of perfection of the court's order.
• The parties were given two weeks to deliver brief written submissions on final orders, costs and related matters; the matter was listed for mention on 4 March 2026.