The High Court has refused applications by the Health Service Executive and a religious Congregation to have claims against them tried without a jury. The ruling concerns the mode of trial only; it does not decide whether the alleged abuse occurred or whether any defendant is liable.
X.Y. alleges that Dr Michael Shine sexually abused him once in 1975 at Shine’s private clinic. Shine was a consultant at a hospital owned by the Congregation. The HSE is the statutory successor to the North Eastern Health Board, which had certain healthcare duties in 1975. The Board bought the hospital in 1997, and the HSE was established in 2004.
The plaintiff’s 2014 proceedings seek damages on several grounds, including assault and negligence. He alleges, among other things, that the Congregation and the HSE or its predecessor failed to prevent the abuse. The HSE disputes liability. Its motion to dismiss the case had not been heard when this application was decided.
The Congregation and HSE asked the court to set aside the plaintiff’s notice of trial by jury. They argued that the negligence claims concerned separate failures over time, rather than the same act as the alleged assault. The plaintiff argued that the alleged assault was central to all his claims and that the claims should be heard by a jury.
Justice Ni Raifeartaigh considered section 1(3)(b) of the Courts Act 1988, which provides an exception to the general rule that personal-injury claims are tried without a jury. The judge noted that the HSE negligence claim raised a wide range of issues, including statutory duties, hospital oversight and the transfer of responsibilities from the Board to the HSE. She said a literal reading of the statutory wording might favour the HSE, but concluded that she was bound by appellate decisions interpreting the exception broadly.
Applying those authorities, the judge found a causal connection between the alleged failures and the alleged assault. She concluded that the negligence claims against both the HSE and the Congregation fell within the jury-trial exception. The court therefore refused the relief sought in both motions, leaving the claims to proceed with a jury.
The judgment makes no findings on the underlying allegations, the defendants’ liability, or the merits of the HSE’s un heard dismissal motion. The judge added that the statutory wording may warrant further consideration by the Oireachtas because modern cases can involve multiple defendants and complex claims.