Case Summary: Crilly -v- TJ Farrington Ltd [2001] 3 IR 251


Republic of Ireland

Where legislation governing hospital charges affected health authorities and insurers daily, the High Court agreed to hear the matter despite it being moot as between the relevant parties.

Click here to read judgment.


This case concerned legislation governing charges payable to hospitals in personal injury cases. The Plaintiff was injured in a road traffic accident and was treated in a number of hospitals. In earlier proceedings, he had claimed certain hospital charges from his insurer. Although the Respondent insurer had settled the hospital bill by the time of the hearing, the parties agreed that this was an issue which should be tried, despite being moot.


The High Court agreed to the parties' request that a moot issue be heard concerning a point of statutory interpretation which affected the health authorities and insurers on a daily basis.


It was a well-established principle that moot litigation should not be heard. Nevertheless, this case concerned an issue which arose regularly between the parties, who had expended time and money in bringing the matter to court and specifically requested the Court to resolve the matter.

Points of note

This may be taken as authority, albeit limited, that where both parties consent, a moot issue may be considered by the Court. That the issue was "capable of repetition" was central to the Court's agreement to the parties' request.

Sustaining Partners