A High Court challenge brought by the woman at the centre of an abortion controversy last year and aimed at stopping a Health Service Executive inquiry into the care provided to her by various state agencies, has been struck out.
The woman, known as Ms Y, is an asylum seeker who sought an abortion after arriving in Ireland pregnant as a result of rape in her home country.
Despite seeing a number of agencies, the pregnancy was well advanced by the time her case was assessed by a three-doctor panel. She had sought an abortion on grounds that she was suicidal.
She had a caesarean section against her initial wishes and the child was placed in State care.
As a result a HSE inquiry was set up but the woman opposed the inquiry and took a High Court case to stop it.
She is separately suing the State for damages.
Her lawyers had argued that she had been unable to participate in the inquiry due to ill health and therefore the manner in which it was conducted breached her right to fair procedures and constitutional justice.
Ms Y sought an order from the High Court halting the inquiry, which commenced in August 2014. She also sought an order quashing a draft report concerning her case allegedly "leaked to media".
The HSE had opposed the application. The three-day action was due to begin before the High Court today.
However, following talks between the parties, High Court President Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns was told the case could be struck out.
Welcoming the settlement Ms Y's representatives said in a statement afterwards that the HSE had effectively agreed "to quash a draft report" compiled after an inquiry was established to examine the response of the State and other agencies in the case.
The statement also said: "The HSE has confirmed it will not publish, circulate within the HSE or disclose to any third party the so called draft report into her care, and that the report will never be used in a manner that infringes Ms Y's legal rights."
The report was now "entirely redundant", the statement said, adding: "Ms Y feels vindicated in her refusal to ever accept the draft report or any of its findings. She will now move forward and advance her case for damages expeditiously".
Last December, the court had also heard Ms Y suffers from a medical condition and is described as being "extremely vulnerable."
Ms Y's version of events should have been ascertained before any report was compiled, it was claimed.
The leak of the draft report, the contents of which were featured in both print and broadcast media, had "compounded her illness," and had breached Ms Y rights including her right to privacy, she claimed.
Ms Y was also unhappy that the four-person inquiry team appointed by the HSE to conduct the inquiry was composed of individuals who were or had been in the past employees of the HSE.
This gave rise to an apprehension of "bias".
The inquiry team did not include either a consultant obstetrician and a consultant psychiatrist, it had also been submitted.
A stay had been placed on the inquiry from proceeding pending the outcome of the action.
In a statement, the HSE said the report has not been quashed.
"Following an agreement between lawyers for Ms Y and the HSE, the case did not proceed to court and has been struck out".