Judgment: 2017-10-24 · Court archive

Supreme Court divided over redress award linked to transfer to non-scheduled nursing home

In a dissenting judgment, O’Donnell J said the 2002 scheme did not cover injuries suffered in a nursing home outside its schedule. The majority reached a different conclusion; the appeal was allowed.

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • JGH (Applicant)
What

In a dissenting judgment, O’Donnell J said the 2002 scheme did not cover injuries suffered in a nursing home outside its schedule. The majority reached a different conclusion; the appeal was allowed.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Hospital
  • Nursing Home
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court allowed JGH’s appeal in a divided decision on the scope of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. In a dissenting judgment delivered on 24 October 2017, O’Donnell J would have dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory scheme did not provide compensation for injuries suffered in a nursing home that was not a scheduled institution.

The Supreme Court allowed JGH’s appeal in a divided decision on the scope of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. In a dissenting judgment delivered on 24 October 2017, O’Donnell J would have dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory scheme did not provide compensation for injuries suffered in a nursing home that was not a scheduled institution.

The case concerned JGH’s treatment as a young child. He alleged abuse at the Nursing Home, where he spent an extended period under a regime of prolonged bed rest. The Hospital was a scheduled institution under the Act; the Nursing Home was not. JGH’s claim was that a decision associated with the Hospital to transfer him to the Nursing Home could bring the resulting abuse and injury within the scheme.

The Redress Board awarded him €6,000, accepting that he had experienced limited harsh treatment at the Hospital and limited psychological effects. On review, the Review Committee treated the transfer as abuse and increased the award to €34,000. JGH did not accept the award and sought judicial review. The High Court quashed the Committee’s decision, but the Court of Appeal reversed that ruling. The Supreme Court then heard JGH’s appeal.

O’Donnell J considered that the Act’s broad definition of abuse did not extend to an otherwise neutral transfer that led to abuse elsewhere. He also said entitlement depended on section 7, which required injury while resident in a scheduled institution, consistent with abuse alleged to have occurred during that residence. In his view, the Act’s specific provisions for certain off-site abuse supported that reading.

The judgment records that the Supreme Court majority allowed the appeal, contrary to O’Donnell J’s view. The material provided here contains only his dissenting reasons; it does not set out the majority’s reasoning or the formal order. O’Donnell J’s conclusion was that he would dismiss the appeal. His analysis also noted that the available record did not establish that JGH had been transferred to the Nursing Home by the Hospital.

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