Interrogatories sought in medical negligence claim are unnecessary, vague and inappropriate

Application by plaintiff in personal injuries action to serve interrogatories on the defendant – medical negligence – alleged negligent treatment - treatment of an avulsion fracture of the talus bone in her right ankle – defendant argues that interrogatories posed, are unnecessary to enable the plaintiff to bring her case properly before the court and are unlikely to lead to any significant saving of costs - questions as phrased, are inappropriate, insofar as they are questions relating to opinions, statements or the conduct of the servants or agents of the defendant and effectively ask the defendant to admit negligence – surgery to affix fracture – alleges that surgery was performed negligently - plaster cast had been inappropriately applied - physiotherapy was wholly ineffective – preliminary defence filed – plaintiff argued that in light of the full defence the interrogatories were appropriate - questions as to opinions, the meaning or effect of documents, or as to statements, or conduct should not be permitted – current attitude of the Courts to interrogatories – whether interrogatories sought are necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs -  McCabe v. Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] 1 I.R. 346 – whether question capable of yes or no answer - vague and unspecific questions disallowed - not appropriate that the defendant should have to accept or deny the plaintiff’s subjective assessment of facts –  medical records are usually admitted in evidence without formal proof -  admission of the hospital and medical records into evidence without formal proof, means that the case can be dealt with in a sensible and cost effective way.