The High Court has allowed a woman to amend her pleadings before a retrial of her claims against a former teacher and chaplain and her former school. The amendments include claims concerning grooming, consent and disability under limitation law. The court refused to add a separate tort of sexual exploitation.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Cian Ferriter on 12 February 2024, concerns procedure only. It does not decide whether the alleged events occurred or whether the defendants are liable. The first defendant denies that he had a sexual relationship with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleges that a sexual relationship began when she was 17 and continued after she turned 18. Following an appeal, claims relating to events after her 18th birthday were statute-barred. The claims remaining for retrial are against the first defendant and Gorey Community School. Claims against the third defendant had been dismissed and that dismissal was not appealed; the third defendant remains named in the proceedings because of a costs order.
A 34-day High Court trial in 2016 and 2017 had resulted in a damages award to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal overturned that judgment and ordered a retrial, finding that the trial judge had failed to address the consent issue. It did not dismiss the claims, concluding that factual and legal questions required consideration at a retrial.
Mr Justice Ferriter permitted the plaintiff to plead that psychological or psychiatric injuries amounted to a disability under section 48A of the Statute of Limitations 1957, as amended, and to add complex PTSD as a particular of injury. He said the limitation issue had been addressed with evidence and submissions at the original trial, and the defendants had not identified specific prejudice from the amendment.
The court also allowed amendments pleading that the plaintiff could not give valid consent, or that any apparent consent was vitiated, because of the alleged power imbalance between a pupil and a teacher and chaplain. It permitted a claim in breach of fiduciary duty against the first defendant, alongside negligence and breach of duty claims. Whether those claims succeed remains for the retrial.
The court allowed the grooming amendments, including a proposed standalone tort and grooming as an alternative aggravating factor. It said the pleaded particulars arose from substantially the same facts as the original case and that the defendants would not be materially prejudiced by the late amendment. The court noted the delay and said it could be reflected in costs.
The proposed standalone tort of sexual exploitation was refused. The judge said no authority had been provided establishing such a tort and that it was unnecessary to determine the issues at retrial. He added that the trial judge would decide what evidence is admissible on consent and the other permitted claims. The plaintiff was directed to seek a retrial date and necessary case-management steps after revised defences are delivered.