A major pharmaceutical group has asked the High Court for an order preventing the continuation of an action against it by a man who claims his 20-year-old son's suicide was a side-effect of the boy's use of an anti-acne drug manufactured by the group.
The court was told that Liam Grant, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of other family members, has turned down an offer of €37,000, made without admission of liability, for mental distress and funeral expenses.
Mr Grant, his solicitor said, wanted to have the issue of liability determined because he believed the alleged wrongful actions of the defendants had caused or contributed to the death of his son, also named Liam. He was also seeking €700,000 to meet the costs of medical and scientific research which he had commissioned.
Mr Grant (58), Wainsfort Manor Drive, Terenure, Dublin, has brought the case against Roche Products (Ireland) Ltd, Clonskeagh, Dublin, a number of other Roche companies and the Irish Medicines Board, which deny the claims.
It is alleged by Mr Grant that the suicide of his son was linked to the negligence of the Roche organisation in the manufacture of a drug sold here under the name Roaccutane and its failure to give proper advice and warnings in respect of its use. Liam died on June 15th, 1997.
The defendants are seeking an order staying Mr Grant's proceedings or restraining their continuation on grounds that, given an open offer made last October, the relief being sought has been offered. The group argues that continuation of the case would be an abuse of the court process.
Yesterday the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, was told that in September last the Roche side had made an offer to Mr Grant to settle the action for €30,990 for mental distress and €5,595 for funeral expenses.
It was made clear by the Roche side that the offer was being made in full and in final settlement of all claims against the defendants and without admission of liability.
Solicitors for Mr Grant replied later that month rejecting the offer, describing it as "a cynical attempt" to "avoid a public trial in relation to its wrongful conduct concerning the drug Roaccutane".
On the same date, it was submitted on behalf of the Roche side, the Grant solicitors provided what were stated to be "additional particulars" of the claim. These included a claim for some €696,193 for medical and scientific research.
Mr Justice Finnegan was also told that, in July 2003, the Master of the High Court had made an order allowing for the discovery of a huge number of documents by Roche to Mr Grant.
Mr Grant is appealing restrictions placed on that order. The order required the discovery of some two million documents, but if it had been granted in full, the total number could have been five million.
In an affidavit yesterday, Roderick Bourke, a solicitor with McCann Fitzgerald, for the defendants, said Mr Grant's apparent wish to continue the proceedings, notwithstanding the offer, would appear to be consistent with his stated objective in bringing the proceedings, which was to try and force disclosure by the Roche side in relation to Roaccutane.
Mr Bourke said he did not believe that was a proper purpose for maintaining proceedings in circumstances where the relief claimed was damages and where the Roche defendants had offered to pay Mr Grant all the damages to which he would be entitled, even if he were successful in the proceedings.
In another affidavit, Susan Stapleton, solicitor with Ivor Fitzpatrick and Co, for Mr Grant, said no offer had been made in respect of the claim for €696,193. In its offer, the Roche side had avoided saying whether in their view the damages claimed were recoverable as costs in the proceedings.
The hearing continues today.