A High Court master in Northern Ireland has ordered the first defendant in a clinical negligence case to pay the plaintiff's legal costs after he withdrew an application to set aside service of a writ of summons. Master Harvey delivered the ruling on 22 April 2026, finding no sufficient grounds to depart from the standard principle that costs follow the event.

The case centres on medical care provided to Charlene Siobhan Beattie before, during and after the birth of her son on 23 November 2020. She brought proceedings against Dr John Manderson and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. The writ of summons was issued on 22 November 2023. Dr Manderson applied on 22 December 2025 to have that service set aside, claiming he had not received the writ until after its period of validity had expired.

At a summons court hearing on 6 March 2026, the first defendant indicated he intended to withdraw the application. However, the two sides could not agree on costs, prompting a further hearing on 14 April 2026. Dr Manderson had offered on 5 March 2026 to withdraw on a no-costs basis, meaning each party would bear its own expenses. That offer was not accepted, and both parties sought costs.

Master Harvey found that the withdrawal of the summons constituted a victory for the plaintiff and that costs had been reasonably incurred by her in resisting the application. The first defendant argued that the plaintiff's solicitor had acted unreasonably - citing delay in issuing proceedings until one day before the limitation deadline, delay in serving the writ close to the end of its validity period, and a failure to serve a letter of claim or give Dr Manderson any advance notice of the proceedings. Master Harvey acknowledged the failure to serve a letter of claim was a breach of the clinical negligence protocol but concluded it did not amount to conduct sufficiently unreasonable or improper to justify departing from the standard costs rule.

The court noted that the plaintiff's solicitor had provided a detailed replying affidavit on 6 February 2026, including postal log books as evidence that service had been properly carried out by first class post. Master Harvey observed there was no evidence that Dr Manderson or his representatives had sought clarification from the plaintiff's side about service before bringing the set aside application. The judgment noted that while forewarning is not a procedural requirement, it would generally represent best practice and would likely have avoided the need for a court application.

Master Harvey also criticised the pace of the defence response, noting that Dr Manderson claimed to have received the writ on 27 November 2024 but that his medical defence organisation did not engage solicitors until March 2025. A further three months passed before an application to enter a conditional appearance was brought, and a further six months elapsed before the set aside application was filed on 22 December 2025.

The court referred to the approximately 2,500 active clinical negligence cases in Northern Ireland and repeated a call for parties in such cases to consider standstill agreements where limitation is a concern, noting that provision for such agreements is set out at paragraph 21 of the clinical negligence protocol issued on 1 October 2021. Master Harvey awarded the plaintiff the costs of the application, taxed in default, and certified for counsel.