The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal over whether a civil claim for damages arising from alleged sexual assaults should be heard by a judge and jury. It held that the claim fell within an exception in section 1(3)(b) of the Courts Act 1988 and dismissed a motion to transfer the case to a non-jury list.
The plaintiff, Richard Sheridan, alleges that Patrick Kelly sexually assaulted him while he was a student at Oatlands Junior School between 1983 and 1986. The statement of claim also alleges that Kelly, identified in the pleading as the school’s principal, caused serious personal injuries and psychological damage. Those are allegations in the underlying action; the Supreme Court was deciding the mode of trial, not whether they were proved.
Sheridan also claims that Anthony Mark McDonnell, sued as representative of the Congregation of Christian Brothers, is liable for negligence and other alleged breaches of duty, including failing to monitor members’ contact with children. The Congregation’s defence denies responsibility for the alleged assaults and disputes vicarious liability. The judgment says the first defendant’s defence was not material to this appeal.
The Congregation sought to have the action transferred to the Personal Injuries list for a judge sitting alone. The High Court granted that application after concluding that Sheridan had joined another cause of action to his claim for intentional trespass to the person. Sheridan appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a jury.
The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 6 April 2006, addressed the interpretation of the exception in section 1(3)(b). The parties agreed that the action included a claim for intentional trespass to the person, in substance assault, and a claim for another cause of action, in substance negligence. The issue was whether the damages claimed for those causes arose in respect of the same act or omission.
The court said the pleaded case’s core was that the plaintiff suffered personal injury as a result of the alleged assaults, and that any acts alleged against the second defendant were said to have led to the same damage. It concluded that the action came within the statutory exception. The court allowed the appeal and substituted an order dismissing the Congregation’s motion.
The ruling determines that the claim is entitled to be heard by a judge sitting with a jury. It does not decide the underlying allegations or require all issues to be tried together: the Supreme Court said the High Court retains its usual discretion to order separate or joint trials.