The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Christopher McGee, ruling that a claim for damages for breach of constitutional rights is an action “founded on tort” and subject to the six-year limitation period in the Statute of Limitations Act 1957.
McGee was imprisoned in Portlaoise Prison between 2000 and 2004. He alleges he was required to “slop out” because his cell had no in-cell sanitation. He began proceedings on 22 December 2014, seeking damages over the conditions of his detention. The State respondents pleaded that the claim was out of time.
At a preliminary hearing, the High Court held that the claim was barred under section 11(2) of the 1957 Act. McGee appealed. The Supreme Court’s decision, delivered by Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell on 25 May 2023, addressed whether a claim of this kind falls within that section—not whether McGee’s allegations were established or whether he should receive damages.
McGee argued that his claim was a distinct constitutional action, known as a “pure Meskell” claim, rather than one founded on tort. His counsel accepted that some time-based restriction, such as the equitable doctrine of laches, could still apply, but argued that this issue would require a full trial and could not be decided at the preliminary stage.
The Court considered earlier decisions on constitutional damages claims. It noted that in Simpson v. The Governor of Mountjoy Prison, the Supreme Court had recognised damages for breaches of constitutional rights arising from prison conditions. But the Court said it had not previously definitively decided whether a pure Meskell claim was founded on tort for the purposes of the limitation statute. Earlier judgments and decisions had strongly supported that interpretation.
Chief Justice O’Donnell reasoned that a constitutional claim seeking damages for harm to a person performs the same function as an action for damages for a recognised tort. The Court concluded that such a claim is founded on tort and therefore subject to section 11 of the 1957 Act. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s order that McGee’s action was barred.
The Supreme Court did not determine the underlying claim about the conditions in Portlaoise Prison. Nor did it decide the broader questions raised in the judgment about constitutional remedies, liability for unconstitutional legislation, or the development of tort law; it said those issues did not require decision in this appeal.