The High Court has refused an application to dismiss a man’s civil action alleging sexual abuse by a teacher at a Limerick primary school, despite finding about eight and a half years of inexcusable delay in prosecuting the case.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2022, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter dismissed an application by the first named defendant, Michael Murray, sued as nominee of the Christian Brothers’ St Helen’s Provincialate. The application relied on the time without a procedural step and on the court’s power to dismiss proceedings for inordinate and inexcusable delay. The judge did not decide whether the claim was proved or whether any limitation defence would succeed.
The plaintiff, David Rose, alleges that Brother Sean Drummond sexually abused him while he was a pupil at Creagh Lane Christian Brothers’ primary school in Limerick. His claim originally described abuse between about 1965 and 1972; replies to particulars narrowed the period to September 1967 to June 1968. The judgment records that Drummond pleaded guilty in 2009 to 36 indecent assault offences against Rose and 18 other students, and received a two-year prison sentence. That conviction was a factor in the judge’s assessment of whether the civil case should continue.
The action began in October 2006. The judge found the overall delay was inordinate and held that the period from May 2010 to December 2018 was not fully excusable. He said there was no explanation for the gap between a June 2016 decision in test cases concerning State defendants and the plaintiff’s renewed correspondence in December 2018. The plaintiff’s solicitor had followed litigation about State liability, but the judge said that did not sufficiently excuse leaving the separate claim against the first defendant inactive without proposing that it be paused. The claim against the State defendants had been discontinued in 2009.
In weighing the balance of justice, the judge noted the very long time since the alleged abuse, but found no specific evidence that the eight-year period of culpable delay had materially worsened the first defendant’s ability to defend the claim. He also considered the conviction, medical evidence supporting the plaintiff’s pleaded account of serious psychological harm, and the explanation advanced for delay before the case began. He made clear that these observations did not determine any limitation issues.
The court dismissed the strike-out application and said the parties should complete the pleadings and prepare the case for trial as soon as practicable. The judgment does not determine the underlying civil allegations or the amount of any damages.