The Supreme Court has refused the State’s application for legal costs against Louise O’Keeffe following her unsuccessful appeal over State liability for sexual assaults committed by a primary school teacher.
O’Keeffe had been sexually assaulted as a schoolgirl by lay teacher Leo Hickey during individual or extra-curricular music lessons in a classroom. She successfully sued Hickey and was awarded £305,104 in damages. The court was told that he did not have the resources to pay that award and was required to make monthly payments for the remainder of his life. O’Keeffe also received €53,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal.
In separate proceedings, she sought to hold the Minister for Education and the State liable for Hickey’s actions, principally on the basis that an employer-employee relationship existed which could give rise to vicarious liability. The High Court dismissed that claim and the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal.
The remaining issue was costs. Ordinarily, a successful party is entitled to recover its legal costs from the unsuccessful party. However, the courts can depart from that rule where special or exceptional circumstances exist.
The Supreme Court accepted that O’Keeffe’s case was an important test case affecting a significant number of pending claims concerning alleged State liability for abuse by primary school teachers whose salaries were paid by the Minister.
The court also pointed to the historically complex relationship between teachers, school managers, school owners or trustees, the Minister and the State. Those arrangements formed the background to the difficult question of vicarious liability.
Taking those factors together, the court found exceptional reasons not to apply the normal costs rule.
The State’s application for appeal costs was therefore refused. The Supreme Court also set aside the High Court costs order previously made against O’Keeffe, leaving each side to bear its own costs as between O’Keeffe and the State defendants.