The High Court has awarded €50,868 to a crèche manager who was assaulted at her workplace in January 2012 and continued to experience psychological symptoms more than a decade later.
The parties were anonymised because the judgment makes limited reference to related family law proceedings involving a child.
Liability for the civil claim had already been established after the defendant repeatedly failed to deliver a defence. He was also convicted following a separate criminal trial of assault causing harm arising from the January 4, 2012 incident. That conviction was upheld on appeal.
The High Court appeal therefore concerned damages only. The defendant argued that alleged suppression of evidence and updated particulars of injury meant liability should be reopened. Mr Justice Conor Dignam rejected that position, noting that the earlier default judgments had never been set aside.
The judge accepted the plaintiff’s account that the defendant pushed her, tried to bite her and headbutted her in the face during a confrontation at the crèche. She suffered a nasal injury requiring surgery under general anaesthetic, facial and arm bruising and some continuing breathing and sensitivity problems.
Her more significant injury was psychological. A clinical psychologist assessed her in 2015 as having moderate post-traumatic stress symptoms and in 2023 as being on the borderline between mild and moderate PTSD. The court attributed €30,000 to that dominant injury, with a €10,000 uplift for the physical injuries.
Dignam J also rejected an application under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 alleging that the plaintiff had knowingly given false or misleading evidence. He found no merit in that application.
The court awarded a further €6,500 in aggravated damages. This reflected the defendant’s unsupported attacks on the professionalism of the plaintiff’s expert psychologist and his unmeritorious section 26 application.
Special damages of €4,368 were also allowed, producing a total award of €50,868. The judge’s provisional view was that the plaintiff should receive her legal costs.