The Supreme Court has reduced a €600,000 damages award to €350,000 in a civil case involving repeated sexual abuse of a teenager over five years, culminating in rape.
In a judgment delivered on 18 March 2005, the court allowed the defendant’s appeal against the High Court jury’s assessment of general damages. It held that €600,000 was so far above a reasonable award that it was disproportionate, and substituted €350,000. The appeal concerned the amount of damages, not liability: the defendant had admitted the abuse, and the amount was the only issue for the jury.
The abuse occurred from 1990 to 1995, when the plaintiff was aged between 12 and 17. The judgment said the assaults took place in the plaintiff’s family home and at the defendant’s family home and premises. The plaintiff gave evidence that the abuse escalated over time and included penetrative sex. She described nightmares, anxiety and depression, and difficulty coping with college.
Her general practitioner testified that she had depression, sleep problems, flashbacks and difficulty engaging with treatment. A consultant psychiatrist said the abuse had blighted her life and that she could face lifelong difficulties with emotional and physical intimacy. The judgment noted that her prognosis was difficult to assess.
The defendant argued that the jury’s award was excessive and had failed to account for his early admission, apology, remorse and ability to pay. The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the award should stand, pointing to the continuing harm and the abuse as a continuum. Those were submissions; the Supreme Court’s decision was that the amount had to be reduced.
The court said this was a very serious case, but not the worst-case scenario and not one warranting the maximum award. It considered general principles for personal injury damages and referred to the Residential Institutions Redress Scheme and the Book of Quantum as informative material, while stressing that the scheme was not a precedent and that the Book did not address sexual abuse injuries.
The court said early admission, a guilty plea and an apology could have helped alleviate the plaintiff’s suffering, but were of limited relevance to compensation. It concluded that €350,000 was an appropriate award at the higher end of the general personal injury damages range. The judgment addressed general damages; the source records no quantified special damages award.