The High Court has dismissed proceedings against the estate of a deceased former Waterpark College official over allegations of sexual abuse, finding that his death meant the estate could not fairly defend the claim at trial.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter delivered the judgment on 16 March 2022. The plaintiff, Daniel Scannell, alleges that Thomas Meehan sexually abused him between 1993 and 1998, when he was a secondary school student. The alleged incidents were said to have taken place in Mr Meehan’s office at the Waterford school during the school day. Mr Meehan, who died in 2019, had denied the allegations in his defence.
The application was brought by Mr Meehan’s executors, Paudie Kennedy and Michael Meehan. They asked the court to dismiss the case against them because of delay and the risk that the passage of time, combined with Mr Meehan’s death, would prevent a fair trial.
The judge found that the delay before the proceedings began in 2012 was excusable, having considered Mr Scannell’s account and medical evidence about the effects of the alleged abuse. But he found an inordinate and inexcusable period of about three and a half years after the case was transferred to Dublin in March 2014, during which no step was taken in relation to Mr Meehan’s case. The judge noted that delays by a solicitor are generally treated as the party’s responsibility, while also taking account of Mr Scannell’s evidence that his solicitor had failed to respond to repeated calls and messages.
On the balance of justice, the judge concluded that the prejudice to the executors outweighed factors favouring Mr Scannell, including the seriousness of the alleged wrongs and the impact he described. The alleged abuse was said to have occurred in private, and the judge found that the executors would have no witness able to give evidence on Mr Meehan’s behalf. He held that this created a real risk of an unfair trial. He also concluded, alternatively, that the same prejudice met the separate legal test for dismissing a case where a lengthy lapse of time risks an unfair trial or unjust result.
The court granted the executors’ application to dismiss the proceedings against them. The ruling did not dismiss the claims against the third and fourth defendants; the judge noted those claims could still proceed. He was provisionally minded to make no order as to costs, but said he would hear the parties further if necessary.