The High Court dismissed J.B.’s claims against the Southern Health Board and four other defendants after finding that an earlier settlement covered the claims in the case. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice de Valera on 20 July 2007, did not address whether the claims were statute-barred or had been delayed excessively.
J.B. began the current proceedings in July 2000, seeking damages for personal injuries, loss and damage arising from alleged assault, breach of duty, breach of constitutional rights and negligence. The first defendant had filed a defence; the other four had not.
The court heard two applications together. The first defendant sought dismissal on limitation and delay grounds. The other defendants sought dismissal on the basis that earlier proceedings against the Brothers of Charity, the Bishop of Cork and named perpetrators had been settled, satisfying any claim arising from the same damage.
The judgment records that J.B. was admitted, aged almost nine, to a residential institution operated by the Brothers of Charity in April 1961. The court said uncontradicted allegations were that he suffered physical and sexual abuse there between 1961 and 1968 by two members of staff, identified in the judgment as Brother A and Brother E. It also recorded that J.B. developed alcoholism and depression in early adulthood, which professionals had attributed to the abuse, and that he was unable to disclose it until 1997. A complaint led to Brother A’s conviction in November 1999 on charges relating to the abuse.
J.B.’s earlier proceedings, started in 1998, were settled before trial. A discharge form dated 26 August 1999 recorded payment of £28,000 “in full and final settlement of all claims” and without admission of liability. J.B. argued that the sum did not fully compensate him and that the settlement applied only to the earlier case.
The judge rejected that argument. He found the settlement wording clear and held that the claims in the two proceedings were identical apart from the constitutional-rights claim. Citing the Civil Liability Act 1961, the court found the defendants were concurrent wrongdoers and that the earlier satisfaction discharged them from liability for the same damage. The judge said the settlement amount might have been less than J.B. could have recovered after a successful trial, but that did not alter the effect of a properly reached compromise.
The court dismissed the claims in the current proceedings. Because of that conclusion, it made no findings on limitation or delay.