Settlements of more than €4.5m approved by the High Court in three cases over swine flu jab

Settlements totalling more than €4.5m were approved by the High Court in three cases over the administering for the swine flu jab which caused sleep disorder.

The cases involve two under-18 year olds and an adult man. Nothing can be reported to identify them by order of the court.

The cases were against the Minister for Health, the HSE, and Glaxosmithkline Biologicals SA (GSK) — the producer of swine flu vaccine Pandemrix.

GSK was previously given an indemnity by the State concerning any adverse reactions to the vaccine.

It was claimed in all three cases that the plaintiffs developed narcolepsy.

These settlements arose out of general terms agreed in groundbreaking settlement last year which paved the way for the resolution of 80 cases over the Pandemrix vaccine.

In the first case, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan approved a settlement of €1m for a teenage boy who received Pandremix when he was six and subsequently developed moderate to severe narcolepsy.

In the second case of another teenage boy, the judge approved a settlement of €1.75m after his counsel Jomathan Kilfeather SC said there was a complicating factor in this case because the child had also been diagnosed with autism which meant that his life in the future will be very different.

In the third case, Ms Justice O’Regan approved a €1.8m settlement for a man in his 20s who received the vaccine in 2009.

He was also diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder when doing his Junior Certificate which meant he required continuing support and was unlikely to get employment.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Catriona Crumlish v Health Service Executive – Court of Appeal

On Oct. 15th, The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision against Caitriona Crumlish in her claim against Letterkenny University hospital. The plaintiff alleged that there was a failure to detect and diagnose breast cancer in May 2017 resulting in an alleged...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...