Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 AUGUST 2026

Substance Over Form: A Warning Letter Does Not Constitute A “proceeding” In Cases Of Dismissal For Delay

RDJ LLP
RDJ LLP
Contributor
RDJ LLP

RDJ LLP

RDJ is one of Ireland’s leading corporate law firms. With more than 300 employees and offices in...

View firm profile
Explore more from RDJ LLP

The High Court's recent judgment in O'Shaughnessy v Health Service Executive provides crucial guidance on when medical negligence proceedings may be dismissed for want of prosecution, particularly examining the significance of warning letters and the four-year inactivity threshold. Building on the Supreme Court's reformulated principles in Kirwan v Connors, the decision clarifies what procedural steps genuinely interrupt periods of delay and when the burden shifts to plaintiffs to justify continuation of st

IrelandLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In a judgment delivered on 30 July 2026 by Mr Justice Coffey in O’Shaughnessy v Health Service Executive, RDJ acted for the Defendant wherethe High Court, in applying the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Kirwan v Connors, examined the various steps taken by both the Plaintiff and Defendant which ultimately led to a successful application by the Defendant for dismissal for want of prosecution. 

A useful summary of the Kirwan Supreme Court principles previously set out by the RDJ Dispute Resolution team can be found here. 

Background

The Plaintiff underwent surgery in June 2014. It was alleged that the surgery was performed without informed consent and that the Defendant was negligent in preparing the Plaintiff for the procedure. 

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from