The Court of Appeal dismissed the Medical Missionaries of Mary’s appeal against an order allowing a civil jury trial of a claim arising from alleged sexual abuse in 1975. The court considered only the congregation’s appeal; the proceedings against the Health Service Executive (HSE) had been compromised after the appeal hearing and before judgment was delivered.
The plaintiff’s case alleges that Michael Shine sexually abused him in 1975. The judgment records that the claim against the congregation was brought in its representative capacity and pleaded both vicarious liability for Shine’s acts and negligence in allegedly allowing or permitting the abuse to continue. The congregation denied employing Shine at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda and denied that the alleged events happened on premises it owned, controlled or supervised. Those allegations and denials were not resolved in this appeal.
The issue was whether the pleaded claim against the congregation fell within the civil jury-trial exception in section 1(3) of the Courts Act 1988. The court reviewed Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities on when additional claims can be tried by a jury alongside claims for assault or intentional trespass to the person. It said the analysis turns on the substance of the case and whether the other claims are connected to the same core act or omission.
Delivering judgment, Ms Justice Baker said the claim against the congregation was primarily based on vicarious liability and was closely connected to the pleaded assault. She found that the direct-negligence element, based on alleged omissions and failures, was also sufficiently connected to that core claim. The trial judge was therefore correct that the plaintiff was entitled to a civil jury trial against the congregation.
The court dismissed the appeal. It rejected the argument that practical concerns, such as the possibility of inconsistent results or damages across claims against different defendants, should alter the statutory test. It also said it was unnecessary to decide the appeal by reference to the broader timeframe pleaded for claims against the congregation and the HSE.
The ruling determined the mode of trial only. It did not determine whether the alleged abuse occurred, whether the congregation was liable, or the amount of any damages.