The High Court assessed damages of €300,000 against a former principal of a national school in County Galway for sexually abusing a pupil between 1969 and 1972. The award includes loss of job opportunity and earnings in general damages. The judgment does not state a separate damages figure against the other defendants; it found them not liable on the claims before it.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Johnson on 18 July 2006, was issued in redacted form. It identifies the plaintiff as T. M. and the former principal as J. H. The plaintiff had obtained judgment in default of appearance against J. H. in November 2002. The remaining defendants contested the case, denying liability and relying on limitation and delay.
The judge found that the plaintiff’s psychological injury substantially impaired his ability to decide to bring proceedings, bringing his claims within the relevant provisions of the Statute of Limitations legislation. The court rejected the defendants’ limitation pleas. It also found that the long delay was explicable and excusable in light of the plaintiff’s trauma, and that the balance of justice favoured allowing the case to proceed.
On liability, the court found no evidence that the second defendant, sued in a representative capacity for the Franciscan Order, knew of the principal’s conduct or had responsibility for his appointment or control as a teacher. It also found no employer-employee relationship or control that would make the second defendant vicariously liable.
The judge found that the Department’s first notice of a school matter came in a letter from the school manager in June 1973, after the plaintiff had left. The Department acted promptly on that letter, which concerned girls in the class. The court found no employer-employee relationship or day-to-day control sufficient to make the Minister and related State defendants vicariously liable. It also declined to find negligence based on alleged failures to investigate or provide counselling, because evidence about what inquiries and counselling were available at the time, and what their effects would have been, was not before the court.
The judgment records the plaintiff’s evidence of repeated abuse at school, lasting psychological trauma and difficulty disclosing what happened. The damages assessment was made against the former principal.