Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Moore v Health Service Executive (Approved)
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff brought a clinical negligence claim arising from a hysteroscopy, D&C and polypectomy performed at Hospital A on 30 January 2018, after a miscarriage and continuing gynaecological symptoms. [Para 16][Para 20][Para 21] The summons was issued protectively on 28 January 2020, was never served, and expired on 27 January 2021. [Para 17][Para 26][Para 28] In March 2025, the High Court renewed the expired summons ex parte on the basis of new information, new solicitors and a new expert report, and the Defendant later applied to set that renewal aside. [Para 17][Para 38][Para 40]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff’s receipt of later medical advice and a supportive expert report constituted “special circumstances” under Order 8 Rule 1(4) RSC sufficient to justify renewal of a summons more than four years after expiry. [Para 18][Para 103][Para 140]
- Whether the delay in reactivating the claim, together with any prejudice to the Defendant and the administration of justice, required the renewal order to be set aside. [Para 76][Para 83][Para 109][Para 147]
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The Plaintiff had consciously abandoned the litigation after receiving an adverse expert opinion, so later obtaining a more favourable opinion did not amount to special circumstances. [Para 76][Para 82]
- The amended rule sets a higher threshold than the former “good reason” test, and plaintiffs who issue protective proceedings must act with expedition. [Para 77][Para 79][Para 106][Para 110]
- Deliberate non-service, changing solicitors, confusion about advice, or later discoveries do not ordinarily justify renewal. [Para 82][Para 133][Para 134]
- Renewal would be prejudicial because the case concerned events from 2018, memories fade, and surgical negligence cases are not purely documentary. [Para 83][Para 84][Para 86]
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff said she acted responsibly by not pursuing allegations unsupported by expert evidence and only revived the claim after materially different medical advice emerged in 2024. [Para 88][Para 90][Para 94]
- She argued that the change in expert opinion, together with the efforts made to obtain records and a suitable expert, amounted to special circumstances. [Para 90][Para 93][Para 99]
- She submitted that the Defendant had notice of the claim since January 2020 and had shown no concrete prejudice. [Para 99][Para 100]
- She relied on authorities said to support a broad interests-of-justice assessment, including Power v CJSC Indigo Tajikistan, Murphy v HSE, Nolan v Board of Management of St Mary's Diocesan School, and Kearns v Evenson. [Para 93][Para 107][Para 109]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Rooney v HSE [2022] IEHC 132 |
Memories fade over time; surgical negligence cases are not purely documentary. [Para 83][Para 180] |
The Court accepted that witness recollection can deteriorate and that prejudice may exist even where records remain available. [Para 180][Para 183][Para 184] |
| Pisarski v Kepak Cork Unlimited Company [2026] IEHC 94 |
Deliberate non-service and long dormancy can justify refusing renewal. [Para 84][Para 134] |
Relied on by the Defendant and treated as consistent with the proposition that a claim cannot simply be “parked” and revived years later. [Para 84][Para 134] |
| Power v CJSC Indigo Tajikistan [2025] IESC 55 |
The court must conduct one overall interests-of-justice assessment when considering whether special circumstances justify renewal. [Para 93][Para 109] |
The Court used this authority to frame the analysis as a holistic balancing exercise rather than a mechanistic test. [Para 109][Para 145] |
| Murphy v HSE [2021] IECA 3 |
“Special circumstances” is a fact-sensitive concept; it means something beyond the ordinary, and solicitor inadvertence will rarely suffice. [Para 106] |
The Court adopted the higher-threshold approach and treated delay in obtaining expert evidence as requiring clear justification. [Para 106][Para 110][Para 112] |
| Nolan v Board of Management of St Mary's Diocesan School [2022] IECA 10 |
Special circumstances must first be identified; deliberate non-service will not ordinarily suffice. [Para 108] |
The Court relied on this as part of the line of authority rejecting deliberate dormancy as a basis for renewal. [Para 108][Para 132] |
| Kearns v Evenson [2023] IECA 297 |
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing special circumstances; prejudice and hardship are part of a single interests-of-justice analysis. [Para 108] |
The Court treated the burden as resting on the Plaintiff and assessed hardship and prejudice together. [Para 108][Para 173] |
| O'Neill v Birthistle [2024] IECA 17 |
Maintaining proceedings for years without supportive expert evidence may amount to abuse of process. [Para 110] |
Cited as part of the proposition that expert evidence must be pursued with reasonable expedition. [Para 110][Para 112] |
| Kirwan v Connors [2025] IESC 21 |
Delay is harmful to the administration of justice; courts should recognise “culpable plaintiff inactivity” and the public interest in efficient case management. [Para 113][Para 115][Para 118][Para 120] |
The Court relied heavily on this authority to treat long, unexplained delay as a major factor weighing against renewal. [Para 146][Para 172][Para 178] |
| Sweeney v. VHI [2026] IESC 32 |
Delay can itself justify refusal of discretionary relief; there is no requirement to prove prejudice where delay is sufficiently significant. [Para 122][Para 124][Para 127][Para 129] |
The Court used Sweeney to explain why extended unexplained delay could outweigh the Plaintiff’s asserted justification even absent proven prejudice. [Para 147][Para 148][Para 172][Para 178] |
| Hidden Ireland Heritage Holidays Ltd v Indigo Services Ltd [2005] 2 IR 115; [2005] IESC 38 |
Special circumstances/countervailing factors act as a matter of justice. [Para 131] |
Referenced through Sweeney to support the broader balancing exercise. [Para 131][Para 145] |
| Darjohn Developments v IBRC [2016] IEHC 535 |
A summons cannot be issued and then “parked” awaiting favourable developments. [Para 132] |
Cited as authority against deliberate dormancy pending a better forensic position. [Para 132][Para 160] |
| Timmons v Wellcome Foundation Ltd [2026] IEHC 304 |
Deliberate non-service cannot itself justify renewal. [Para 133] |
Used to reinforce the proposition that proceedings should ordinarily be served within time. [Para 133] |
| Galvin v Sharif [2025] IEHC 680 |
Unusual and compelling combinations of events may amount to special circumstances, but an application must be brought promptly once the problem is discovered. [Para 137] |
The Plaintiff relied on it, but the Court distinguished the present case because the later opinion was not based on newly discovered facts or concealment. [Para 97][Para 137][Para 157] |
| Maguire v PSW Sales & Logistics [2026] IEHC 81 |
Cited by the Plaintiff as distinguishable because it concerned solicitor conduct. [Para 96] |
The Court recorded the Plaintiff’s submission that it was not analogous, but did not treat it as central to the outcome. [Para 96] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged the Plaintiff’s severe injuries and personal hardship, but said sympathy could not determine the application. [Para 139] It identified the real issue as whether a later, materially different expert opinion obtained in November 2024 could amount to special circumstances justifying renewal after the summons had expired in January 2021. [Para 140]
The Court reviewed Order 8 Rule 1 and the cases showing that the amended rule imposes a higher threshold, that delay matters, and that special circumstances must be assessed in a single interests-of-justice analysis. [Para 142][Para 144][Para 146][Para 149] It treated Sweeney as confirming that delay may itself justify refusing discretionary relief and that the court must consider the public interest in efficient administration of justice. [Para 147][Para 148][Para 171][Para 172]
On the facts, the Court held that the Plaintiff had obtained an expert opinion in 2020/2021, acted on it, and deliberately stopped pursuing the proceedings. [Para 151][Para 152] The 2024 consultation did not reveal new facts, concealed records, or a previously unknown complication; it only produced a different professional view on the same factual material. [Para 156][Para 157][Para 162][Para 165][Para 167]
The Court also found that the three-year period between expiry of the summons and the renewed effort to reactivate the claim was largely unexplained. [Para 173][Para 177][Para 178] It rejected the argument that notice of the claim eliminated prejudice, explaining that surgical negligence cases depend on witness recollection and real-time clinical judgment, both of which deteriorate with time. [Para 180][Para 182][Para 183][Para 184]
The Court further held that prejudice was not limited to missing documents or unavailable witnesses; there was inherent forensic prejudice and a wider public interest in finality, expedition and the proper use of court resources. [Para 185][Para 186][Para 187][Para 189] It concluded that allowing litigants to revive abandoned claims years later on the basis of a different expert opinion would undermine the time limits built into Order 8 and the administration of justice generally. [Para 161][Para 167][Para 190][Para 191]
Holding and Implications
ORDER SET ASIDE. The Court set aside the ex parte order renewing the summons because special circumstances justifying renewal had not been established. [Para 194] The direct consequence was that the Plaintiff’s renewed summons did not stand, and the decision reaffirmed a strict approach to long, unexplained delay in renewal applications. [Para 194][Para 148][Para 172]
Click here to read the full judgment