How can a Personal Injuries Summons be revived? Moore v. Health Service Executive [2026] IEHC 536

Mere acquisition of a new favourable medical opinion does not justify revival of a claim.

Summary

This case concerns an application to set aside an order renewing a Personal Injuries Summons (‘PIS’), and addresses the important procedural question of “under what circumstances may a PIS be revived?” More precisely, the case provides interesting insight into what constitutes “special circumstances” within the meaning of Order 8 Rule 1(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts (as amended).

The case comes in quick succession with several other procedural disputes arising from clinical negligence claims and is of substantial importance to practitioners. Together, the cases represent a general tightening in the Court’s application of these particular procedural rules.

Brief Background

The original claim arose from a period of treatment following a miscarriage, in which it was alleged that a surgeon failed to identify uterine perforation, which then led to several long-lasting medical complications. The original PIS had been issued in January 2020 naming the Health Service Executive (‘HSE’) as the sole Defendant, however the Plaintiff failed to obtain a favourable expert opinion to maintain her claim, and so the PIS was not served.

After a period of three years, following consultation with another surgeon who indicated a potential breach of duty in her previous care, the Plaintiff took up an alternative expert opinion which was supportive of her original claim. Following an application to the High Court, the PIS was renewed in March 2025. The relevant “special circumstances” identified by the Court, in justifying the renewal at that time, was “the receipt of new information, the plaintiff's instruction of new solicitors and obtaining a new expert report”.

Arguments Advanced

In response, the HSE brought a motion to set aside the order granting renewal of the PIS. The HSE’s primary argument was that the only change in the circumstances of the Plaintiff’s claim was that a new expert opinion had been taken up (albeit long after the expiration of the PIS), and that this circumstance did not satisfy the high threshold of “special circumstances”.

The Plaintiff argued that her conduct demonstrated responsible litigation, by not pursuing a clinical negligence claim without a supportive expert opinion. However, when she was alerted to the potential grounding of a claim, which was substantiated upon receipt of an expert opinion following instruction of alternative Solicitors, this sequence of events constituted “special circumstances”. Relying upon the High Court decision in Power v. CJSC Indigo Tajikistan [2025] IESC 55, the Plaintiff argued that the Court must undertake a broad assessment of the interests of justice rather than applying a rigid or mechanistic test.

Particularly noteworthy was the Plaintiff’s reliance on Galvin v. Sharif [2025] IEHC 680, wherein the Court acknowledged that an unusual and extraordinary combination of events may amount to special circumstances. The Plaintiff argued that the emergence of materially different expert medical opinion years after proceedings were issued is similarly unusual and/or extraordinary so as to amount to “special circumstances”.

Issue of Prejudice

The parties also disagreed on the effect renewal would have in relation to prejudice. Relying on Pisarki [2026], the HSE argued that it was unjust to defend complex litigation years after the event. Given that the HSE had been aware of the substance of the proposed claim since January 2020, and that the relevant clinician had provided a contemporaneous statement at that time, the Plaintiff argued that there was no evidence that the HSE was prejudiced and, rather, that the balance of justice overwhelming favoured her claim continuing.

Decision of the Court

The Court highlighted the purpose of the “special circumstances” requirement in Order 8, which it said exists to ensure that any real injustice, which might arise from the overly rigid application of the Rule, can be avoided.

However, the Court went on to highlight the difference between the personal significance to the Plaintiff of a favourable expert opinion, and the type of special event necessary to satisfy Order 8. A new expert opinion does not constitute an underlying factual change in circumstances. The Court outlined how any other interpretation would undermine the deliberate limits imposed by Order 8, as such would provide a clear loophole for proceedings to be revived at any later stage after such have expired, simply by receiving supportive expert report.

This decision is also of note due to the Court’s useful discussion regarding prejudice. The Plaintiff’s arguments against prejudice were found to be unconvincing, as they relied solely on the early notification of the potential claim (following issue of a letter before action) to the HSE. Drawing from the Supreme Court cases of Kirwan and Sweeney, the Court noted the difficulties caused by delayed litigation generally.

Conclusion

This decision provides useful clarification on what constitutes “special circumstances” for the purposes of renewing a PIS and emphasises the importance of avoiding substantial delays within civil litigation in Ireland.

If you would like any further information or advice on the information mentioned within this article, please contact Sam Francey, Daniel Moore or another member from the Healthcare team.

*This information is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute, nor should be regarded as, a substitute for taking legal advice that is tailored to your circumstances.