An interesting case came before the High Court where the plaintiff alleged that Boots Pharmacy was negligent in giving her medicine for a migraine complaint, where it was alleged that the pharmacist failed to advise the plaintiff that the migraine medication contraindicated with an antidepressant drug she was taking. As a result, the plaintiff suffered a brain bleed and stroke. In the proceedings, it was claimed that the medicine was allegedly inappropriately sold to the plaintiff and consequently there was an alleged failure by Boots Pharmacy to advise the plaintiff that the migraine medication is contraindicated with an antidepressant drug that the plaintiff was taking. This was due to a significant interaction between the two medications and can lead to blood pressure and strokes. Boots Pharmacy vehemently denied all the claims made by the plaintiff and explained their defence to the court. The witness for the pharmacy said they could not remember the plaintiff purchasing the medication but stated that their protocol required that anyone purchasing migraine medication is referred to a pharmacist in the store. The plaintiff said that she took the migraine medication when she woke up with a terrible headache. She felt dizzy after taking the tablets, collapsed and was taken to the hospital by ambulance. There a scan was taken showing a brain bleed. She was in hospital for a month and after discharge suffered severe left leg weakness, difficulties with her left arm and had to go for rehabilitation. The plaintiff claimed that at time of purchasing the migraine tablets, there was no consultation with the pharmacist. Boots disputed this.  Boots claimed that there was a responsibility on the plaintiff to inform the pharmacist of her medical history, and without doing so, they could not have been aware of other medications she was taking. As a result of this information not being disclosed to the pharmacist, there was contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Boots said without the plaintiff disclosing her other medications she was taking, there was no way that they could have known that the migraine medication would conflict with her other medication and thus the plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune. The parties settled the case without admission of liability by Boots Pharmacy, so we don’t know how the case would have been decided. But it does appear clear that the plaintiff, not mentioning to Boots Pharmacy at the time of the purchase of her other medicines, did contribute to the suffering she later endured. O’Meara v Boots Pharmacy High Court (Miss Justice Denise Brett) 26 June 2025.

There can be occasions where a person or persons wish to challenge the Will of a loved one. The grounds can vary, but common grounds are that they may have felt that the deceased (testator) was not of sound mind when making their Will, or that another person exercised undue influence on the person making the Will, or that a beneficiary may feel that they were unfairly treated by the Will or that the Will was invalid. A child of the deceased may claim that they were treated less fairly that other siblings and thus would be entitled to challenge the Will. In this case, a court will look into any disbursements during the testator’s lifetime that might have been the reason why the challenger was left less of the testator's assets than his/her siblings. The court seeks to read the intention of the testator and interpret it accordingly. A person who was a financial dependent of the testator would have a similar claim. This group could be children, spouse, adopted/fostered children, civil partners, grandchildren or step-grandchildren. Outside of this group i.e. nephews or nieces, a claim can be made, but it will be for the court to decide whether they have a legitimate claim or not. Testator was Not of Sound Mind A Will can be challenged if it is claimed that the testator lacked the ‘necessary capacity’ at the time of signing of the Will. This means, the person making the Will was not of sound mind and did not understand what they were doing or signing. For such a claim to be successful, medical evidence would have to be produced to show that the testator lacked the mental capacity to understand what they were doing or signing. Invalid Wills For a Will to be valid, it must fulfil certain conditions: The Will must be in writing. It must be signed by the person who made the Will in front of two independent witnesses. The witnesses must not be beneficiaries. The person who made the Will must be over 18 and of sound mind. The witnesses themselves must be over 18. Undue Influence Put simply, this amounts to putting pressure on a person to do something they might not do or want to do themselves. In Wills, it might be persuading the testator to leave an asset to somebody. A court will look at a Will that is being contested to ascertain if the testator put some provision in the Will that was out of character for the testator. Or if one beneficiary has done very well from the Will, which looked out of place. Another ground here could be that a gift in the Will was in contrast with the previously expressed intentions of the deceased. Contesting a Will is a complex issue, so engaging the services of a solicitor is critical. The claim against a Will is to overturn all or part of the Will, and that requires establishing to the court the evidence necessary to invalidate the will and this is where your solicitor will guide you on what is regarded as one of the most difficult tasks in any court proceedings.

A case came before the Workplace Relations Commission concerning a transition student being punished by the school for the wearing of an earring in one ear. The school had a rule that students could wear a pair of earrings but not a single earring. At the start of term last year, the student arrived at the school wearing a round silver stud earring in one ear. The student differed with the school on the rule concerning the wearing of earrings. The student’s mother and grandmother became involved with the school about the issue and attended a meeting with the school’s principal which they believed was a hostile meeting. In evidence before the WRC, the school principal denied this. Following the meeting, the student was punished for breach of the rule. The punishment consisted of not being allowed to leave school with other students for lunch and finish school later. The solicitor for the student said that an amicable solution had been sought, but as opinions differed, it became necessary to bring the matter to the WRC. He said that the student felt that his reputation had been attacked as the pressure escalated between the parties over what the student thought was an absurd rule about the wearing of earrings. The student felt the rule didn’t make any sense and was an interference with a student’s right to express themselves. It was submitted that the punishment was disproportionate and unwarranted, and breached his right to wear one earring when other students could wear one in each ear. The school submitted that it followed its disciplinary code at all times in dealing with the student and sought to de-escalate the issue. The WRC found that the school had discriminated against the student on the grounds of gender and ordered the rule to be changed to permit students to wear one or two earrings and awarded the student €9,000 in compensation. The money was to be paid to his mother until the student reached the age of 18 and used for his education until then. The WRC decided not to publish the names of the parties. Student (Minor) v Secondary School Ref No. ADJ-00054056, 5 June 2025

Suing a hospital or medical consultant was always a difficult task as such actions are protracted and expensive. These difficulties were compounded by the hospital/insurers’ reluctance to release their medical notes or be transparent about patient incident records. Such difficulties could perhaps become a thing of the past with the introduction of recent legislation which basically requires the hospital or doctor to disclose to the patient and their family any serious patient safety incidents that occurred while the patient was in their care. The rather long-winded name of this act is The Patient Safety (Notifiable Incident and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 which came into effect on the 26th of September 2024. Examples of such incidents might perhaps include the wrong medication being given or the wrong blood type transfusion being administered to a patient. Errors could occur in the anaesthetic area not to mention in the high-risk area of prenatal care and delivery. The HSE and its hospitals have been historically reluctant to disclose any such incidents or errors that occurred when the patient was in their care. There was a strong tendency to circle the wagons and limit any relevant information from reaching the patient or their family. A culture of secrecy is now being slowly displaced by a culture of openness and transparency. What exactly does “notifiable safety incident” mean? It means any incidents resulting in the unanticipated and unintended death or serious injury to the patient. But who has to comply with this new law? Almost everyone who is a healthcare service provider such as public and private hospitals, GPs, dentists, and pharmacists. All of these must notify the HSE following such an incident and disclosure must then be finally made to the patient. Can you be sued if you do make such a disclosure? No. To encourage transparency, no liability will attach to any such disclosure.  What if your hospital just refuses to disclose? An unreasonable refusal to disclose can attract substantial penalties. Any other reforming measures contained in the act? The act obliges the National Cancer Screening Service to arrange a review of their screening results if requested by cancer patients. It excludes clinical records from being admissible in either negligence or disciplinary actions, thereby facilitating their full release. It expands the right of HIQA, the Health Authority, to inspect private hospitals and health services in the further cause of patient safety. The model of the medical profession is: Do no Harm. But when harm does occur, they are now under an obligation to be transparent about it.

Virgin Media appealed to the Labour Court an award of € 30,000 for discrimination taken by a long-serving schedule planner. At the Workplace Relations Hearing, the applicant, Sian Shepherd, complained that she had been discriminated against by the media company after deciding that the selection process for the appointment of a scheduling team leader was tainted with discrimination. Ms Shepard had availed of maternity leave between August 2021 and August 2022 and early in October 2022 the company advertised internally for the position of scheduling team lead. There were four applicants among whom was the plaintiff applicant. The applicant was unsuccessful in her application. Out of the four applications for the post, Ms Shepherd was a Joint third place. The Labour Court found that the applicant had failed to establish any facts from which it would be possible for the court to infer that she may have been treated less favourably by the company on grounds of her family status. Commenting on this, the deputy chairman of the court noted that at an earlier hearing of the appeal, Ms Shepherd stated that those who were placed ahead of her in the job application were both parents of young children. It followed then that their family position was the same as Ms. Shepherd. Ms. Shepherd submitted that she had worked for the company for 15 years, eight of which were years she worked consecutively. She claimed that she had been passed over for promotion that she was led to believe was almost guaranteed to her. She stated that prior to the maternity leave she was the most senior member of the team with the most experience and that she had trained every member of the team including the successful candidate. She claimed that on her return from maternity leave she had been excluded from an important scheduling meeting dealing with the death of Queen Elizabeth 11. At the WRC hearing, the company contended that the applicant’s complaint of discrimination due to her family status was groundless and misconceived. The company’s decision to appoint another member of the team was based on a robust and transparent recruitment process which took into consideration all the applicants' suitability for the position.  In considering the final choice the successful applicant displayed greater understanding of the company's business needs, strategic knowledge, other recommendations and a structure of the team going forward. The appeal was allowed. Shepherd v Virgin Media The Labour Court 12 December 2024 Ref No. EDA2468

In February 2019, the plaintiff was injured from a terrifying fall and lengthy skid from his motorbike on a slip road driving onto the M1 motorway. Liability for the accident was attributed to an unknown driver of a car who could not be traced, so the defendant was the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland. The case came before the High Court for assessment of damages only as special damages had been agreed between the parties at €8,000. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff was leaving his home at approximately 6:30 a.m. to travel to his work in Sandyford, Co. Dublin. This was a journey the plaintiff was well familiar with. He came down the slipway at the Balbriggan interchange to enter the M1 when an erratic motorist cut in front of him without warning causing him to brake suddenly. The motorist then also braked, causing the plaintiff to brake again and ultimately fall from his motorbike with an approximately 200m skid along the roadway amongst heavy traffic. He said he came to a stop on his back with his head in a ditch and felt immediate pain in his left arm. He described that he “knew something was up” and, on taking off his protective biking gear could see his hand “hanging off at the end of his wrist.” He also had an injury to his left ankle. The plaintiff was taken to hospital by ambulance where he was x-rayed revealing the extent of his injuries. These were: (a) his left wrist revealed a comminuted intra-articular fracture with depressed intra-articular fragments (b) his left ankle revealed no obvious fracture and of his lumbar sacral spine, no acute injury. Notwithstanding the absence of a fracture, the plaintiff outlined how very painful and debilitating his ankle was in the aftermath of the incident. The plaintiff accepted that the injuries had substantially resolved themselves after about six months though he remains in some residual pain five years since the accident if required to stand for long periods. In the course of the operation the plaintiff experienced an allergic reaction to a prophylactic antibiotic he had been given, Teicoplanin, and required resuscitation. This was understandably traumatic for the plaintiff to hear when he later woke up from his anaesthetic. He had an uneventful post-op recovery but he is left with a 10cm longitudinal surgical scar extending up from his wrist. During the plaintiff’s four-day in hospital, he was concerned about developing MRSA as another patient close to him had caught the disease. When the plaintiff was discharged from hospital his arm was in a splint and sling for approximately six weeks. He required a support on his ankle and his movements and general activities of daily life were restricted. He required intensive physiotherapy and was prescribed home exercises thereafter, which he carried and continues to carry out, to get movement into his wrist. The plaintiff accepted that he had not engaged with further professional assistance in this regard. The plaintiff indicated that he would have taken time off work if that had been possible but as he is self-employed, the simple fact of life was that if he did not work, he did not get paid and there was no other income coming into the family. He therefore returned to work within a week of the accident. However, to travel to work then took an hour and a half as it required a car journey, with his wife available to drive, followed by a bus and then a Luas. While at work the plaintiff had difficulties operating the keyboard and mouse on his computer. Later he tended to work from home. His social activities in sports were impacted by his injuries. Given the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and the later intrusion these made on his professional and home life the court, in assessing damages, took into account the psychological Injuries that resulted from his ordeal. Scar: The 10cm scar was deemed noticeable but not significantly burdensome to the plaintiff. If it had been the primary injury, it would merit €20,000, but its contribution as an additional injury was valued lower. Ankle Injury: Falling into the “minor” category of the Guidelines, it would have been valued at €2,500 as a standalone injury. Psychological Effects: Though no formal psychological injury was diagnosed, the plaintiff’s sleep disturbance, flashbacks, and fear following the accident were acknowledged. These were valued at €5,500. A combined award of €21,000 for these injuries after applying a discount of 25% for their cumulative effect. General damages were awarded at €66,000 and the agreed special damages of €8,000 brought the total award to €74,000 with costs. Crum -v- Motor Insurers Bureau Ireland [2023] IEHC 656 (ex tempore).

We are in the season of high winds and those with trees on their land could have damage claims against them where the trees or branches fall onto a neighbour’s land or obstruct a public pathway or road. The governing law here is the Roads Act, 1993, section 70 which places the responsibility on the landowner to ensure the trees are safe and do not cause damage to others. S.70 (i) (a) of the Act states: 70.—(1) (a) The owner or occupier of any structure and the owner or occupier of any land on which a structure is situated shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the structure or the use of the structure is not a hazard or potential hazard to persons using a public road and that it does not obstruct or interfere with the safe use of a public road or the maintenance of a public road. The section has interesting words in this section in ‘all reasonable steps’ so it is not an absolute rule and there is some flexibility. It would appear from this that if a person with trees on their property is fastidious in maintaining the trees, then through storm damage they may not be liable. If the damage is done to a neighbour that also has trees that may not be such an issue. But if the neighbour does not have trees and their property is damaged then it gets more complicated depending on the damage. Storm damage is regarded as a natural event but poorly maintained or diseased trees on lands may not escape under liability. Property owners living in suburbs with hedges hanging out over their property obstructing footpaths are liable for any injury caused to pedestrians or children passing by. In non-stormy weather conditions, liability for fallen trees is covered by the legislation so poorly maintained trees will be the responsibility of the property owner. Property owners with trees on their land are best advised to ensure the trees are well maintained. Dead trees should be removed as these are most vulnerable in stormy conditions and if in doubt speak to your solicitor.

The ‘inherent jurisdiction’ of the High Court is an interesting relief that owes its origin to the Common Law, but in Ireland, it is enshrined in our constitution. Article 34.3.1° provides: ‘The courts of first instance shall include a high court invested with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil or criminal’. In October 2023, the High Court issued a Practice Direction (these are procedures to be followed when bringing proceedings before a court) aimed at people who lacked capacity. The Practice Direction in full is available on the Courts website at HC123 - Inherent Jurisdiction (Capacity) Applications but in short states that: 1. This Practice Direction is intended to apply to all applications made pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for the detention and treatment of people who lack or are alleged to lack capacity. These applications will appear in the Inherent Jurisdiction (Capacity) List. 2. This Practice Direction will come into operation on 2 October 2023 and is issued in accordance with the general authority of the President of the High Court and sections 11(12) and (13) of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020, insofar as it relates to remote (or hybrid) hearings. (Courts Website) An example of the exercise of this doctrine came before the High Court recently. The case involved a woman who lacked capacity due to anorexia nervosa. Her case was before the High Court’s ‘ inherent jurisdiction ’ list. In this list, orders are sought to vindicate the constitutional rights of people who cannot make decisions in their own interest due to a lack of capacity. In this case, a High Court judge had previously made orders to the Mater Hospital for the woman’s detention and treatment at the Mater after hearing her body mass index (BMI) was falling dramatically and that her condition was that she was close to death. The orders had been sought by the Mater Hospital, but it transpired that only one doctor was aware of the orders. When this doctor went on a week’s leave, the woman was assessed as medically stable and ready for transfer to another medical facility. This amounted to a breach of the orders that had been made and was deemed an ‘illegal movement.’ This transfer had a detrimental effect on the woman as she had become nervous and ‘crucially’ her BMI level was affected. The judge noted that the hospital only noticed the move of the woman after it had occurred. The judge was very critical of the hospital for allowing this to happen and deemed it a breach of the orders that had been made for the treatment and care of the woman. The judge accepted an undertaking by the CEO of the Mater Hospital ensuring that no breach of a court order will ever occur again in relation to someone who falls under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

Former presidential candidate, Peter Casey, issued defamatory proceedings for the untrue and defamatory postings on Facebook. The defamatory postings were made in April 2023 to 2,000 followers of the person who put up the post. Casey ran in the local elections. He said in his election literature that he had been an activist for years and stood up against ‘draconian lockdowns 4G and 5G, austerity and undocumented and uncontrolled immigration’. When the Ukraine war broke out, Casey decided to convert a bed and breakfast he owned in Buncrana, into accommodation for women and children fleeing the war in Ukraine. The defamatory post claimed that workers at Casey’s building were ‘moving unvetted people around like cattle and then warehousing them in office cubicles for profit is akin to human trafficking and inhumane.’ After a fire occurred on the property, the defendant posted a picture of damage to the property complaining that the matter had not been reported in the mainstream media. . Mr. Justice David Nolan considered the statements made by the defendant and ruled that they were untrue and defamatory stating that they were ‘very stressful, hurtful and upsetting’ to Mr. Casey and his family. Judge Nolan determined that the words posted were untrue and, by their natural and ordinary meaning, were defamatory to Mr. Casey’s reputation. He consequently awarded €120,000 in general damages and €20,000 in aggravated damages. The judge noted that the defamatory posts remained online for nine months after the court ordered their removal in November last year. He considered this as a breach of the court order and contempt. Peter Casey v Kim McMenamin High Court (Mr. Justice David Nolan) 13 December 2024 [2024] IEHC 705