The Supreme Court has dismissed Louis Blehein’s appeal against the High Court’s rejection of his damages claim, finding that his personal injury claims were statute barred and that a prior declaration of invalidity adequately addressed his remaining claim.
The appeal concerned proceedings issued in 2002 after Mr Blehein challenged section 260(1) of the Mental Treatment Act 1945. That provision required High Court leave to bring civil proceedings concerning acts purportedly done under the Act. The Supreme Court had previously declared subsection (1) unconstitutional because it disproportionately restricted access to the courts. Its order did not find subsections (2) and (3) independently unconstitutional.
Mr Blehein sought damages for alleged loss and injury connected with three periods of involuntary detention at St John of God Hospital in Dublin: from February to May 1984, January to April 1987, and January to February 1991. He alleged that he was given drugs against his wishes. He also claimed humiliation and distress from having to seek leave to sue under section 260(1).
The High Court had held that his personal injury claims were out of time. It found that he knew of the relevant circumstances no later than 8 July 1991, when he wrote to the Inspector of Mental Hospitals outlining his complaints. Applying the statutory limitation periods, the earliest later proceedings identified in the judgment were already barred. The Supreme Court upheld that conclusion.
The Court said the substance of the personal injury claims fell within established tort law, so the applicable limitation rules also applied to claims framed as breaches of constitutional rights. The judgment noted that Mr Blehein did not address the limitation issue in his appeal submissions.
On the separate claim for hurt, humiliation and reputational damage from having to seek leave, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the declaration of invalidity was an adequate remedy. It also rejected a separate argument that the declaration alone entitled Mr Blehein to damages for time, trouble and expense. One judge had proposed €1,000 for two leave applications; McKechnie J disagreed with that approach.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court did not decide the unrelated challenge to the earlier decision in In Re Philip Clarke, saying it did not arise from the judgment under appeal and was not relevant to the issues before it.