Judgment: 2025-10-28 · Court archive

High Court defers inspection bid in intended creche negligence case involving child

High Court · [2025] IEHC 623

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • M
  • Ms Justice Emily Egan
What

High Court defers inspection bid in intended creche negligence case involving child

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 28 October 2025, Ms Justice Emily Egan held that the girl had not yet shown that inspection of the creche garden shed, CCTV footage and incident records was relevant and necessary before the intended proceedings had been pleaded.

The High Court has deferred an application by an eight-year-old girl seeking early access to evidence for an intended negligence claim against a creche arising from an alleged sexual assault by another child.

In a judgment delivered on 28 October 2025, Ms Justice Emily Egan held that the girl had not yet shown that inspection of the creche garden shed, CCTV footage and incident records was relevant and necessary before the intended proceedings had been pleaded.

The child, identified only as M, was five when the alleged incident occurred in September 2022. Her next friend says she and other children had been left unsupervised while playing in a garden shed at the creche when another child of roughly the same age sexually assaulted her.

The intended defendant did not object to preserving the three categories of evidence. The dispute concerned whether M should also be permitted to inspect them immediately so that a liability expert could prepare a report before proceedings were commenced.

The High Court noted that inspection orders can be made before pleadings in appropriate cases, but such powers are used sparingly because relevance and necessity are usually clearer once each side has formally set out its case.

Ms Justice Egan found that the application did not explain why the expert needed immediate inspection and that the broad allegations of negligence had not yet been sufficiently particularised beyond the claim that the children were unsupervised.

The preservation order means the creche cannot alter the relevant shed or dispose of the CCTV or records while the issue remains outstanding. The judge said this protected the child's ability to litigate without requiring inspection at this stage.

The inspection application was therefore adjourned rather than dismissed. M may renew it once pleadings are closed, when the disputed issues and the creche's defence are clearer. Costs were also deferred.

The court separately imposed reporting restrictions prohibiting publication of material likely to identify the child, including the name of the creche.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review