The Supreme Court dismissed Michael Quigley’s appeal against a €400,000 High Court damages award to Dana Doherty for sexual abuse that began when she was 12. The appeal concerned whether her civil claim was out of time, not liability for the abuse or the amount of damages.
The Court had dismissed the appeal at the end of the hearing in July 2014. In a judgment giving its reasons, delivered by Mr Justice John Murray on 24 June 2015, it held that the trial judge was entitled to find that the claim fell within section 48A of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957, as amended. That provision treats a person as under a disability for limitation purposes while psychological injury caused by childhood sexual abuse substantially impairs their will or ability to make a reasoned decision to bring an action.
The abuse was found by the High Court to have continued from 1982 to 1989. Doherty’s civil proceedings were issued in 2007, outside the ordinary limitation period. At trial, she relied on psychiatric evidence from Professor Ivor Browne, who diagnosed severe post-traumatic stress disorder and described dissociation that could make it difficult for her to address the abuse and decide to sue.
Quigley argued that the trial judge had wrongly applied section 48A. His submissions pointed to Doherty’s complaints to a GP and gardaí, her confrontations with him, her participation in two criminal trials, her work and travel, and her public statement that she intended to bring a civil claim. He also challenged the weight given to Professor Browne’s evidence and argued for an objective assessment of her ability to sue.
The Supreme Court said the statutory question was whether the psychological injury substantially impaired her capacity to decide to bring proceedings, assessed in light of her particular circumstances. The trial judge had considered her apparent ability to carry on with ordinary activities and take part in the criminal process, but was entitled to assess those matters alongside the medical evidence. The Court said section 48A did not require impairment at every moment.
The appeal court found ample evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusion that Doherty’s ability to bring the claim before 2007 had been substantially impaired. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court award undisturbed.