[1] The case was important in developing the doctrine of error of fact in public law which previously had not readily been the subject of judicial intervention.

Justice Holman made a clear statement that the court could not go beyond the scope of what was reviewable and could not come to any conclusions about the proceedings of Parliament and whether they were in any way inadequate or inaccurate.

Furthermore, a judicial inquiry in Ireland found failures of responsibility by the Irish blood transfusion service and concluded that wrongful acts had been committed.

As a result, the Government of the Republic of Ireland decided to make significant payments to those infected...[22]Since the Minister chose to expand on the published reasons for the decision in responding to questions in Parliament, the court was left with an obligation to examine the government's reasoning, provided it did not trespass on issues such as allocation of resources or political matters.

Now with today’s historic breakthrough in the High Court and the huge public backing for my Contaminated Blood Support for Infected and Bereaved Persons Bill, both roads are open.

[27] There was a period of vacuum following the quashing order, where the government was required by the court to revisit the matter and remake the decision – de novo.

[28][29] In May 2024, the case was referred to in volume one of The Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry which reaffirmed the conclusion that the Irish government had commenced payment absent any acceptance of being at fault.