The High Court has ordered a separate first hearing on whether proceedings brought by Susan McGovern over her historic incarceration in Limerick Prison are time-barred or otherwise inadmissible because of delay. The court did not decide the limitation issue or the substance of her claims.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said on 19 April 2024 that the first module would address the preliminary objections pleaded in the defendants’ defence. If resolved against McGovern, the issue would dispose of the proceedings. If resolved in her favour, liability and the amount of any damages would be dealt with in a second, final module.
McGovern’s claims concern alleged “slopping out” in the prison and alleged inadequate care, treatment or supervision for her mental health and depression. The defendants plead that the proceedings are inadmissible on grounds including limitation periods under the Statute of Limitations 1957, the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
McGovern’s response is that she was of “unsound mind” within the meaning of the limitation legislation and therefore entitled to an extension. A psychiatrist’s report, described in the judgment, concluded that her psychological and psychiatric problems had prevented her from taking legal action over her complaints about prison conditions. The defendants pointed to separate personal injuries proceedings she brought in 2006 over an alleged assault in prison, arguing that this suggested she was then capable of instructing solicitors. Those points have not been determined.
The judge said the delay issue could be heard as a module under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and Order 36 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He considered that hearing it separately could save time and costs: the first module was expected to take one or two days, while a substantive hearing was estimated at two weeks and would involve extensive disclosure and oral evidence. He rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that separate hearings would cause prejudice through repeated testimony and duplicated legal costs.
The judgment records that the proposed amendment to McGovern’s statement of claim had not yet been decided. For the purpose of assessing the application, the judge assumed the amendments would be allowed and considered her case at its highest. He said counsel would be heard further on the final wording of the first module’s issues.
The judge’s view on the costs of the motion was provisional: he considered that the defendants, having obtained the modular-trial order, were entitled to recover those costs from McGovern. The case was listed for 2 May 2024 to settle the final form of order and address costs.