The High Court found the Christian Brothers congregation negligent for failing to supervise Brother F. or restrict his access to children, after accepting a detective garda’s evidence that he had been sexually abused as a child. Mr Justice Cross assessed damages at €370,000.
The judgment, delivered on 18 February 2014, concerned proceedings brought by the plaintiff against Kevin Mullan, sued as representing the relevant Christian Brothers congregation. The plaintiff alleged that Brother F. groomed and sexually assaulted him over several years from about 1980, when he was around eight. The judgment records that, on the final day of the hearing, the defendant agreed not to contest that the abuse occurred. The judge said he accepted the plaintiff’s evidence in full.
The plaintiff claimed the congregation had failed to protect him despite its predecessors’ knowledge that Brother F. had received a formal canonical warning in 1960 for “interfering incorrectly with boys who had been in your class”. The judge found the congregation negligent for taking no steps to supervise Brother F. or prevent his access to vulnerable children. He said that even by the standards of the 1980s, the congregation should have had a system to monitor him.
The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay. The judge accepted that the delay was inordinate but found the defendant had not established that it was inexcusable. He also held that the balance of justice favoured allowing the case to proceed, noting that no material prejudice had been shown.
The defendant also relied on the statute of limitations. The judge found that the plaintiff knew by 1995 that his significant psychological injuries were attributable to the abuse, so he could not rely on the ordinary “date of knowledge” rule. However, applying the 2000 amendment concerning psychological injury and capacity, the judge found that the plaintiff’s ability to make a reasoned decision to bring proceedings had been substantially impaired. The limitation defence therefore failed.
The judge said the parties had not addressed him on the amount of damages. He assessed general damages to date, including €20,000 for loss of promotion and opportunity, at €320,000, and future general damages at €50,000, for a total of €370,000. He said aggravated or exemplary damages did not arise. The supplied judgment text ends with the assessment; it does not show a formal order or further directions.