Thalidomide cases may yet end up in High Court

17 July 2012

The personal injuries claims being filed in a ‘class action’ against the State by members of the Irish Thalidomide Association (ITA) could well end up before the High Court.

The Association, which represents 25 of the 32 thalidomide survivors, has said it would commence legal action against the State for recompense, with all its members expected to lodge personal injuries claims.

Dublin GP and ITA spokesman Dr Austin O’Carroll said their advice was that while they were obliged, in the first instance, to submit their claims with InjuriesBoard.ie, which operates a “non-adversarial claims system”, they would most likely end up before the High Court owing to the complexity of the cases.

It is understood that apart from the complexity, InjuriesBoard.ie could potentially rule that the cases proceed to the courts owing to the passage of time and the potentially high valuations involved. In such an event, InjuriesBoard.ie would be expected to announce its decision quickly.

Aside from the Government’s alleged failure to recompense them, Dr O’Carroll said another factor in the ITA members’ decision to pursue the legal route was that the original “miserly” settlement delivered by the Irish State in 1975, based on the presumption the ITA members would not survive into adulthood, he said, had failed to consider their individual circumstances. For instance, some victims were wheelchair bound while others were mobile. Also, the Association claimed the Government had reneged on providing them with healthcare packages.

A spokesman for the Minister for Health Dr James Reilly, who said Hawkins House respected the right of survivors to pursue their concerns either through the courts or by any other means, said the Department was ready to meet them when they wished to do so.

Dr O’Carroll said their hand had been forced as no negotiations had commenced, despite promises over the years by successive governments to provide them with redress.

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...