Last reviewed: June 2026 · Republic of Ireland

What the CervicalCheck Tribunal was (2020 to 2026)

The CervicalCheck Tribunal was a special body set up to decide cervical-screening claims outside the normal court process. The CervicalCheck Tribunal Act 2019 created it, and it began accepting claims in October 2020.^[5] The idea came from a report by Mr Justice Charles Meenan, who recommended an alternative to court because many of the women affected were seriously ill and should not have to face long, stressful litigation.

The tribunal grew out of the CervicalCheck controversy that broke in 2018, after Limerick woman Vicky Phelan settled a High Court action over a smear test that had been read as clear but was later found to be wrong.^[6] Her case revealed that an internal audit had reclassified earlier smears, and that many women had never been told. The tribunal was meant to give those women a faster, less adversarial way to be compensated.

Its hearings were held in private, and a panel of judges could hear and determine eligible claims with the consent of the parties. It was chaired by Ms Justice Ann Power, a Court of Appeal judge, sitting with two other judges. Ms Justice Mary Irvine had originally been nominated to chair it, but stood down on becoming President of the High Court before it began work.^[17] Any decision it made was subject to confirmation by the High Court, and either side could appeal.^[7]

In substance, a CervicalCheck claim is a cancer misdiagnosis claim arising from a screening failure, which is why the same legal tests applied whether a case went to the tribunal or to court.

The tribunal was built mainly for a defined group. When the controversy broke, a CervicalCheck audit found that the slides of 221 women had been misread, and many of them were never told.^[15] That figure is why the 221+ patient support group took its name, with the plus sign added for women identified later, including a further cohort flagged by a Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists review. The tribunal was open to that group and to others whose later reviews disagreed with their original smear result.

Why so few women used it

Almost no one used the tribunal because women did not trust it to treat them fairly, and they chose the courts instead. The tribunal processed around 25 claims over its whole life, while more than 330 cervical-screening claims went through the High Court.^[2] Campaigners described this as women voting with their feet.

The scale of the court route is clear from official figures. By mid-2023 the State Claims Agency had recorded 385 claims brought against the CervicalCheck programme, including psychological claims by family members.^[16] Set against the tribunal's two dozen, that gap is the clearest measure of how far women preferred the courts.

The 221+ patient support group, which represents women and families affected by the controversy, opposed the tribunal from the start and said its concerns were never addressed.^[8] Three problems came up again and again.

It still felt adversarial. The tribunal was promised as a gentler alternative to court, yet it applied the same legal standard, so women could still face a contest with the laboratories that read their smears. The promise of a non-adversarial process did not match the experience.

There was no way back after a recurrence. Campaigners wanted women who accepted an award to be able to return if their cancer came back. The State had allowed exactly that for people affected by the earlier Hepatitis C scandal, but did not provide it here.^[8] For a woman with cancer, that gap was a serious risk.

Provision for children became harder. A Supreme Court ruling in the Ruth Morrissey case meant that a claim for the future needs of a woman's children could generally only be brought after her death, under section 48 of the Civil Liability Act 1961.^[9] Some terminally ill women were left choosing on their deathbeds whether to drop their own case so their children could claim later. That fear pushed many toward the established court route rather than an untested tribunal.

The women most closely involved said plainly that it did not work. Vicky Phelan, whose case first exposed the controversy, wrote that the tribunal had not won the confidence of those affected.^[13] The 221+ group, which has 368 members, saw only a small number take part. Its patient support manager described the mediation as adversarial rather than gentle.^[2]

The Tribunal's dissolution (S.I. No. 19/2026)

The Minister for Health formally dissolved the CervicalCheck Tribunal with effect from 30 January 2026. The CervicalCheck Tribunal (Dissolution) Order 2026 was made under section 36(1) of the CervicalCheck Tribunal Act 2019.^[1] The order was short, and it set up no successor scheme. Once it took effect, the tribunal stopped being a route anyone could choose.

The CervicalCheck Tribunal cost about €3.4 million to run and made no awards in over five years. The Department of Health reported that 26 claims were received and two were combined, leaving 25 processed: 18 were settled between the parties, seven did not proceed, and one was struck out. None went to a full hearing, so the tribunal made no awards at all.^[2]

The set-up bill drew particular criticism. Fitting out the tribunal's offices in the Infinity Building in Smithfield cost about €1.6 million, with lease costs of roughly €1 million on top.^[2] A body that cost millions to build and run delivered no awards, which is why campaigners and several public representatives described it as having failed.

Three different CervicalCheck schemes people confuse

The word "tribunal" is often used loosely for three separate things the State set up, and only one of them was the Tribunal. Knowing which is which matters, because they did very different jobs and paid very different amounts. None of the three is the live route today, which is an ordinary High Court claim.

A fourth strand, the Restoration of Trust meetings, was not about compensation at all. It was a separate process for women and families to document their experience of CervicalCheck, kept deliberately apart from the claims the tribunal heard.^[7] If your question is really about being paid for the non-disclosure rather than the cancer, that is a different mechanism from a negligence claim, and a solicitor can tell you which fits your situation.

How cervical-screening claims proceed today (High Court Clinical Negligence List)

Cervical-screening claims now proceed as ordinary clinical negligence actions in the High Court. Medical negligence claims are exempt from the Injuries Resolution Board, so unlike a standard injury claim they go straight to the High Court rather than through board assessment first.^[10] Understanding this route is the first step for anyone who wants to pursue compensation for injury in Ireland after a CervicalCheck failure.

Since 28 April 2025 these cases are managed in a dedicated Clinical Negligence List, created by High Court Practice Directions HC131 and HC132, issued by the President of the High Court, Mr Justice David Barniville.^[3] A specialist judge oversees the list, and the rules push both sides to prepare early and to consider mediation. A party seeking a trial date must undertake to offer mediation within three weeks of fixing that date.^[3]

The aim is to resolve these difficult cases sooner, which matters when a claimant is unwell. You can read more about the medical negligence claim process and how a case moves through it.

The tribunal route and the court route compared

Whichever forum a case was in, the legal questions are the same. A claimant must show that the screening or care fell below the standard of a reasonably competent professional, under the test in Dunne v National Maternity Hospital, and that the failure caused real harm.^[11]

In cervical-screening cases the Supreme Court in Morrissey v HSE confirmed that test. It held that the HSE owes a duty to women in the programme that it cannot delegate to the laboratories.^[9] That ruling also meant women no longer had to sue both the HSE and the labs, which made the court route more straightforward than before.

Where a delay reduced a woman's treatment options or survival, the claim may also involve loss of chance, an area Irish law still treats with caution.

What this means if you are considering a claim

You can still bring a claim, and the closure of the tribunal does not affect your right to do so. What changed is the forum, not the entitlement. A misread smear, a missed abnormality, or a failure to tell you about an audit can all found a claim, and these are pursued today through the High Court.

Two practical points matter most, and the first is the deadline. A clinical negligence claim must usually begin within two years less one day of your date of knowledge, which is when you first knew, or reasonably should have known, that negligence may have caused you harm.^[4] Working out that date is fact-sensitive, and our page on date of knowledge explains how it is judged. Our overview of time limits for medical negligence claims covers the exceptions for children and for fatal cases.

Second, the type of failure shapes the claim. A negligently read smear is different from a hidden audit result, and each is handled on its own page. If your concern is a smear reported as clear but later found wrong, see our guide to cervical cancer misdiagnosis claims.

If you were never told that an audit had revised an earlier result, see CervicalCheck audit and disclosure failures. For the wider screening programme, our page on cervical screening negligence claims sets out the background.

What to do now if you think you are affected

1. Note your date of knowledge. Write down when you first learned that a smear may have been misread or that an audit was not disclosed. The two-year clock usually runs from that date.^[4]
2. Gather what you have. Keep any CervicalCheck letters, audit or review results, and hospital correspondence together, even if the picture is incomplete.
3. Get an early legal opinion. A solicitor can request your full records, arrange an independent expert review, and tell you whether there are grounds to investigate further.
4. Act before the deadline. Because the limit is strict and fact-sensitive, taking advice early protects both the claim and your options.

How we can help

We handle cervical-screening claims with care, in plain language, and entirely through the live court route. As personal injury solicitors in Dublin acting for clients across Ireland, we know that behind every one of these cases is a person, or a grieving family, who was let down by a system meant to protect them.

How we build a cervical-screening claim

We begin by requesting and reviewing your medical and screening records, then arrange an independent expert review to assess whether the standard of care was met and whether any failure caused harm. We explain what your claim may involve, including general damages and financial losses such as care and treatment costs, always bearing in mind that awards are assessed under the Personal Injuries Guidelines and vary with the facts of each case.^[12] You can read how cancer misdiagnosis compensation is approached.

Cervical-screening claims can be brought on a no win no fee basis. The phrase has a specific meaning and conditions, which that page explains in full.

Common questions

References

1. CervicalCheck Tribunal (Dissolution) Order 2026 (S.I. No. 19 of 2026), Irish Statute Book, made 27 January 2026. irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2026/si/19 ↩
2. Department of Health figures on CervicalCheck Tribunal claims and costs, reported by the Irish Examiner, June 2025. irishexaminer.com ↩
3. Clinical Negligence List, Practice Directions HC131 and HC132 (issued 8 April 2025, effective 28 April 2025), Courts Service of Ireland. courts.ie ↩
4. Two-year limitation period: Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (No. 31 of 2004), section 7, reducing the period to two years. Date-of-knowledge construction: Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 (No. 18 of 1991), section 2. Irish Statute Book. 2004 Act s.7 · 1991 Act s.2 ↩
5. CervicalCheck Tribunal Act 2019 (No. 31 of 2019), signed into law 23 July 2019, Irish Statute Book. irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/31 ↩
6. Background to the CervicalCheck controversy and the Vicky Phelan settlement, The Irish Times, November 2022. irishtimes.com ↩
7. Principal features of the CervicalCheck Tribunal (now dissolved), official tribunal site, accessed June 2026. cervicalchecktribunal.ie ↩
8. 221+ patient support group concerns about the tribunal, including recurrence provision, The Irish Times, October 2020. irishtimes.com ↩
9. Morrissey v Health Service Executive [2020] IESC 6, Supreme Court of Ireland, 19 March 2020 (non-delegable HSE duty, and section 48 Civil Liability Act provision for dependants). bailii.org ↩
10. Medical negligence exemption from the Injuries Resolution Board, Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (No. 46 of 2003), section 3, Irish Statute Book. irishstatutebook.ie ↩
11. Dunne v National Maternity Hospital [1989] IR 91, Supreme Court of Ireland, the standard-of-care test in Irish clinical negligence (reaffirmed in Morrissey). Discussed in Morrissey, bailii.org ↩
12. Personal Injuries Guidelines (2021), Judicial Council of Ireland, in force from 24 April 2021. Awards are assessed under the Guidelines and vary case by case. judicialcouncil.ie ↩
13. Vicky Phelan and 221+ group on the tribunal's low uptake and confidence, The Irish Times, January 2022 (reporting Phelan's published view). irishtimes.com ↩
14. CervicalCheck non-disclosure ex-gratia Scheme (€20,000 flat payment; Independent Assessment Panel chaired by retired Justice Aindrias Ó'Caoimh), established 11 March 2019, Department of Health / gov.ie. gov.ie ↩
15. CervicalCheck audit: 221 women's slides found misread, and the origin of the 221+ group, Irish Examiner, November 2022. irishexaminer.com ↩
16. State Claims Agency: 385 claims brought against the CervicalCheck programme (to 1 June 2023), reported by the Irish Examiner / Echo, August 2023. echolive.ie ↩
17. CervicalCheck Tribunal chair: Ms Justice Ann Power appointed July 2020, succeeding Ms Justice Mary Irvine who stood down on becoming President of the High Court, Irish Legal News, August 2020. irishlegal.com ↩

This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different and outcomes vary. Deadlines are fact-sensitive. Consult a qualified solicitor for advice specific to your situation. Gary Matthews Solicitors is regulated by the Law Society of Ireland.