The High Court has entered judgment for €220,000 against a woman’s father and uncle, jointly and severally, after deducting a €130,000 settlement with the Health Service Executive (HSE) from damages assessed earlier at €350,000. The court also ordered the two men to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs from 11 May 2021 onwards, including the May 2022 damages hearing and an October 2022 hearing.
The ruling is a supplemental judgment on the form of order following the court’s principal judgment of 30 June 2022. It did not reassess the damages. The court said the proceedings are subject to a reporting restriction intended to prevent identification of the plaintiff, including through publication of the names or addresses of the plaintiff and the two remaining defendants or details of where they lived.
The HSE claim had settled before the substantive hearing, and the proceedings against it were struck out in May 2021. At the October hearing, the plaintiff accepted that the HSE was a concurrent wrongdoer for the purpose of determining the settlement’s effect, and that the damages against the remaining defendants should be reduced by the settlement sum. The father agreed with that approach. The uncle argued that the HSE should be treated as responsible for all the damages, saying he had been wrongfully convicted.
The judge declined to reopen the substantive case at this stage. Judgment had been entered against the uncle in default of appearance in 2013, and no application had been made to set it aside. The court also noted that his criminal conviction for rape and sexual assault had been upheld on appeal.
Applying the Civil Liability Act 1961, the court found the settlement exceeded any amount the HSE would have been liable to contribute. It said the evidence did not justify attributing more than 37 per cent of the overall damages to the HSE. The judge described any contribution from the HSE’s alleged shortcomings as minuscule compared with the trauma caused by the father and uncle. The judgment noted that the allegation against the HSE concerned its response after disclosure of the abuse; there was no suggestion of further sexual abuse after its involvement.
The father and uncle had not asked the court to divide the remaining liability between them. The judge therefore ordered them jointly and severally to pay the €220,000 balance. Submissions about their financial circumstances did not alter the damages order; the court said possible disputes over property rights could be dealt with separately.
On costs, the judge found no reason to depart from the usual position that the successful plaintiff should recover her costs. The order covers costs incurred since 11 May 2021, including two counsel, reserved costs and any discovery costs, while preserving earlier costs orders. If the parties cannot agree the amount, it is to be adjudicated under the applicable rules. The judgment states that the defendants have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal within the prescribed time limits.