The High Court has refused to dismiss a woman’s personal injuries action alleging physical and sexual abuse at the Magdalene Laundry in Donnybrook between 1977 and 1980.
The plaintiff alleges that a man she says worked at the Laundry repeatedly assaulted, abused and raped her as a child. She claims the Sisters of Charity are responsible for his actions. Those allegations have not been determined in this judgment, which dealt with the Sisters’ application to dismiss the proceedings because of delay and the risk of an unfair trial.
The court considered the three-part test in *Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley*: whether delay was inordinate, whether it was inexcusable, and, if both applied, where the balance of justice lay. It also considered the separate fairness test in *O’Domhnaill v. Merrick*—whether the defendant could reasonably be expected to defend the claim.
The alleged abuse took place between 1977 and 1980. The plaintiff said she first disclosed it to a third party in November 2009, then to her husband six months later. The court considered the overall delay inordinate, while noting there had been no delay in prosecuting the case after it began. It found the delay excusable, referring to the circumstances described in her claim and the continuing effects she said followed from the alleged abuse. The court said the delay therefore could not be both inordinate and inexcusable.
The Sisters argued that the passage of time made a fair trial realistically impossible. They said they had no written evidence in their control about the alleged abuser or his claimed employment, and that he and most witnesses appeared to be dead. Their affidavit evidence identified one person who knew of a man by the same name who worked at the Donnybrook site around the relevant time.
The court considered that recollection significant. It said the plaintiff had made detailed allegations capable of being tested by a tribunal of fact, and would have to prove her case on the balance of probabilities. It found no real and serious risk of an unfair trial and concluded that the Sisters could reasonably be expected to defend the proceedings.
The court did not decide whether the alleged abuse occurred or whether the Sisters are liable. It refused the application to dismiss the proceedings on grounds of delay, prejudice or unfairness. The personal injuries action may continue.