The High Court has refused an application to strike out a woman’s civil claim over alleged abuse at a school and training centre, finding that the delay in progressing the case was excusable and that the balance of justice favoured allowing it to proceed.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McCarthy on 18 September 2009, concerned a motion by the first defendant to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution. The motion was based on a failure to set the case down for trial and alleged delay more generally. The judge said the plaintiff’s case was “marginal” on whether delay had become inordinate, but concluded that the defendant had not established grounds to dismiss it.
The plaintiff, identified in the judgment only by initials, is described as a person of unsound mind who sued through her mother and next friend. She alleges that while attending St Vincent’s school and training centre in Lisnagry, County Limerick, she was subjected to assault, physical and psychological abuse, and sexual abuse, particularly in 1996 and 1997. The allegations were denied by the first defendant. They were not decided in this application.
The judge noted that the plaintiff had a significant intellectual disability and that instructions had to be taken through her parents and trained child psychologists. The case also involved difficulties obtaining defences and discovery, and the judge considered it prudent for the plaintiff’s solicitors to await the conclusion of related criminal proceedings in 2002. The court accepted that the action thereafter progressed without sufficient expedition and said it perhaps should have been ready for trial around 2005 or 2006.
However, the judge found no evidence of actual prejudice showing that the first defendant could not receive a fair trial. He noted that the defendant had been aware of the matter for years and had himself been in default in entering an appearance. The judge also said the claim was complex and that discovery had been legitimate, even against parties against whom proceedings were later abandoned.
The ruling concerned only the first defendant’s strike-out application. The judge dismissed that application, concluding that the delay was excusable and, in any event, that the balance of justice favoured permitting the claim to continue. The judgment does not decide whether the alleged abuse occurred or determine the ultimate liability of any defendant.