The High Court has given a plaintiff 21 days to deliver a Statement of Claim against the sixth defendant in proceedings alleging abuse after she left a residential institution in 1977.
In a judgment delivered on 16 May 2007, Mr Justice Michael Peart found that the nearly three-year delay after the sixth defendant entered an appearance was inordinate but excusable. The order addressed only the time for delivering the pleading. It did not determine the underlying allegations or the sixth defendant’s alleged vicarious liability.
The plaintiff alleges that the seventh defendant, a Catholic priest who had been chaplain and curate at the institution, continued to abuse her after she left. She claims the alleged abuse continued until 1981 and seeks damages, including for physical and sexual abuse, false imprisonment and mental distress. The judgment records that she received an award from the Residential Institutions Redress Board for the period from 1971 to 1977. Her remaining claim in these proceedings concerned the period after she left.
The sixth defendant opposed the extension, arguing that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that the seventh defendant’s death left him unable to give evidence that might assist the defence. The plaintiff’s solicitor attributed the delay principally to the plaintiff’s fragile state during and after the Redress Board process, which made it difficult to obtain instructions and pursue a second set of proceedings.
The judge accepted that explanation. He said the plaintiff’s solicitor had referred in her first affidavit to intermittent difficulty obtaining instructions and later provided further detail. He considered it reasonable to expand on that explanation in response to the sixth defendant’s affidavit, and found the delay excusable in the circumstances.
The judge also commented on the claimed prejudice. The seventh defendant had suffered a severe stroke in December 2005, and the court was satisfied that from then he would not have been available to give evidence. The sixth defendant could still present evidence on the factual question of whether the priest had been appointed to relevant positions. The court said it was not strictly necessary to decide the prejudice issue because it had found the delay excusable.
The Master of the High Court had refused the plaintiff’s application for more time. On appeal, Mr Justice Peart set that refusal aside to the extent of enlarging the time for delivery of the Statement of Claim by 21 days from the date of judgment.