The Supreme Court has granted consultant obstetrician David Corr leave to appeal a Court of Appeal ruling on how a solicitor's fee is assessed in a medical negligence case. The determination was delivered on 26 September 2016.
The underlying action was brought by Isabelle Sheehan, an infant suing through her mother and next friend, Catherine Sheehan. It arose from alleged negligence by Corr in the antenatal care of her mother, after which Isabelle suffered catastrophic birth injuries and developed cerebral palsy. Corr made some admissions of wrongdoing but initially put causation fully in issue, then conceded it five weeks before the trial. A five-day High Court hearing on damages ended in an interim settlement of €1.9 million, with a full capital value of about €8 million.
The dispute now before the court is the instruction fee for the respondent's solicitors. They claimed €485,000, Corr's costs accountants argued for €250,000, and the Taxing Master allowed €276,000. Kearns P. dismissed a High Court review of that figure.
On 10 June 2016 the Court of Appeal (Cregan J.) found that the bill of costs had not been prepared in accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts and that the Taxing Master's method was flawed. It sent the matter back for a fresh assessment based on a new bill setting out the time and labour spent.
Corr said that the judgment departs from existing law and practice on taxation and could require hundreds of bills of costs in the system to be resubmitted. He asked for a priority hearing. The respondent opposed leave, saying the applicant had overstated the effect of the ruling.
The Supreme Court said Corr had raised issues of general public importance and granted leave to appeal. It will list the case to hear submissions on the specific issues to be heard.