The High Court dismissed a woman’s personal injury claim alleging rape in July 1987, finding that the proceedings were brought outside the applicable two-year limitation period.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2017, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the claim was commenced in September 2015 and was “greatly outside” the time limit under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991, as amended. The court said it was required by law to dismiss the claim as statute-barred.
The plaintiff said in replies to particulars that she had delayed bringing proceedings because post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression had substantially impaired her will and ability to make a reasoned decision. The judge noted there was no evidence before the court, apart from her own averments, to support the claimed disability.
The plaintiff sought to rely on section 48A of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. The judgment said she could not come within either relevant part of that provision: she was 27 at the time of the alleged assault, and she was suing the person alleged to have committed it rather than another person.
The defendant denied the claim and alleged it had been brought for an improper purpose. His affidavit referred to an alleged 2012 meeting at which, he said, the plaintiff sought recompense or threatened that the matter would enter the criminal process. He also said gardaí investigated the allegation, sent a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that no prosecution was directed after review. These were the defendant’s assertions, not findings made by the court.
The defendant also raised two procedural objections: that proceedings began more than six months after a claimed Personal Injuries Assessment Board authorisation issued on 21 January 2015, and that no letter of claim had been sent under the 2004 Act. The judge said it was unnecessary to consider either objection because the two-year limitation period was sufficient to end the proceedings.
The defendant’s motion, issued on 17 August 2016, also sought to strike out the proceedings as frivolous or vexatious. The court did not consider that request, concluding that dismissal as statute-barred was clearly available. The judgment determined the limitation issue; it did not rule on the truth of the alleged assault or the defendant’s allegations about the plaintiff’s purpose.