The High Court has ruled that the parents of a woman who died in the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital may amend their legal claims against the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to include alleged breaches of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Siobhan and Brendan Graham are pursuing damages for psychiatric injury they say they suffered following the death of their daughter, Orlaith Quinn, in October 2018. The Trust has admitted negligence caused Ms Quinn's death but disputes that the parents can recover as secondary victims.

In a judgment delivered on 14 October 2026, Master Harvey granted leave to amend the writs and statements of claim in both actions. He considered whether the proposed new causes of action arose from the same facts as those already pleaded, the limitation issues, and the merits of the claims.

The court noted that the statements of claim already included allegations of a breach of Article 2, meaning the amendment to the writ largely regularised an existing position. However, the introduction of Article 8 and the statutory claims were new. Master Harvey found that all proposed claims arose from 'the same or substantially the same facts' as the existing claims, satisfying the procedural threshold under Order 20 rule 5.

On limitation, the plaintiffs accepted that the defendant could plead a limitation defence, particularly in relation to the Human Rights Act claims which have a one-year time limit. Master Harvey declined to decide at this stage whether the time limit should be extended under section 7(5) of the Human Rights Act, leaving that matter for trial.

The judge also considered the merits but concluded that it was not appropriate to refuse amendment on that basis, as it would risk turning an interlocutory application into a final trial of contested legal issues. He observed that the claims overlap with those in a related case brought by Ms Quinn's widower, which is listed for hearing in January 2027.

Master Harvey acknowledged a ten-month delay in bringing the amendment applications after the court highlighted the gap in the pleadings, and he criticised the lack of explanation in the affidavits. However, relying on the principle that delay alone does not justify refusing a bona fide amendment absent prejudice, he allowed the amendments. He awarded the defendant the costs of the application, to be taxed in default of agreement, and certified for counsel.

The judge stressed that his decision did not express any view on whether the claims will succeed, including whether an extension of time should be granted under the Human Rights Act or whether the alleged statutory breaches give rise to an actionable claim.