The Supreme Court awarded Louis Blehein €1,000 for the time and expense of two applications he had to make under a statutory provision later found unconstitutional. The court allowed his appeal in that limited respect and otherwise affirmed the High Court’s decision.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2018, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the applications, made in 1998 and 1999, required Mr Blehein to seek High Court leave under section 260 of the Mental Treatment Act 1945. The section impeded his constitutional right of access to the courts, the Supreme Court had found in earlier proceedings.
Mr Blehein had not quantified or vouched the particular costs. Justice Hogan nevertheless considered a modest award appropriate to vindicate the rights infringement, setting €500 for each application on an “ex aequo et bono” basis.
The award did not extend to claims arising from compulsory detentions in 1984, 1987 and 1991. Justice Hogan agreed with the High Court that any damages claims relating to those detentions would probably have been defeated by the Statute of Limitations. He said the appellant could therefore have had no reasonable expectation of recovering damages for those events.
The case followed earlier rulings that section 260 was unconstitutional. The High Court reached that conclusion in 2004, and the Supreme Court affirmed it in 2008. The issue of damages was later considered by the High Court, which in 2013 held that the invalidity finding itself sufficiently vindicated Mr Blehein’s rights and refused further redress. The Supreme Court changed that decision only as to the time and expense of the two applications made in 1998 and 1999.