The High Court has refused Mayo County Council’s application to dismiss a woman’s claim that it was responsible for sexual abuse she alleges took place at a courthouse when she was a child.
The ruling was an interlocutory decision: the court considered whether the claim should be ended before trial, not whether the alleged abuse occurred or whether the council is liable. Mr Justice Meenan said the claim raised factual disputes that could not be resolved on the applications before him.
The plaintiff alleges she was abused by the first named defendant between 1993 and 1999, including at the courthouse. She claims the man had keys and acted as caretaker, and that the council, as owner and controller of the building and his employer, was vicariously liable.
The council sought dismissal on two grounds: that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It relied on records and affidavits from its county secretary, John Condon. Those materials indicated that PC was employed as courthouse caretaker until her death in 1997; that the council leased the courthouse in May 1995 to a company of which the first named defendant was secretary; and that he was appointed part-time caretaker from September 2000.
Mr Condon said the man was not employed by the council in 1994 or 1995 and was not then caretaker or key holder. He said that if the man entered the courthouse for unlawful purposes, he did so without the council’s consent and was trespassing.
The plaintiff disputed that account in an affidavit. She said she saw the man unlock the courthouse with his keys and believed he had access without fear of being discovered. She also said the records about PC did not establish that no one else had keys or caretaker duties.
The judge said the council could not rely on hearsay evidence to obtain orders that would end the action. He noted that the council said relevant people had died, retired or had dim recollections, but there had been no application to strike out the case because of the passage of time. The documentary material and the plaintiff’s account left a conflict about the man’s access and the council’s control of the courthouse, which required evidence to resolve.
The council also argued that sexual abuse, if proved, would not be sufficiently connected to any caretaker employment to make it vicariously liable. The judge said that argument might ultimately succeed, but deciding it would require evidence about the nature of the caretaker’s duties and any contact he had with children.
The court refused the relief sought by the council. It did not decide the truth of the allegations, make a finding on vicarious liability, or determine the action after trial. The plaintiff’s separate motion to strike out Mr Condon’s affidavit was recorded in the judgment, but the conclusion addresses only the relief sought by the council.