The High Court dismissed a claim against the fourth defendant in proceedings brought by an anonymised plaintiff who alleged he was sexually abused between 1981 and 1988 by the first defendant. The ruling followed a motion seeking dismissal on grounds that the claim was legally misconceived and had no reasonable prospects, and, alternatively, because of delay.
The fourth defendant was identified in the judgment as Brian O’Reilly and his successors, the Provincials of the Divine Word Missionaries. The plaintiff alleged that the organisation failed to assess and monitor the first defendant, and allowed him to continue towards ordination and ministry despite being unsuitable. The plaintiff’s counsel said the claim was negligence, not vicarious liability, and that expert evidence would establish the alleged failures. No expert evidence was presented on the motion.
The court said the plaintiff and his family had no connection with the Divine Word Missionaries, which had not introduced the first defendant to the family or brought about his access to the plaintiff. The judge held that the organisation owed no duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances alleged. He said the proposed duty could not extend generally to all children the first defendant might encounter, regardless of how contact arose.
The judge also found the claim statute barred. The plaintiff relied on a claimed period of mental disability, describing depression, breakdowns and treatment, and said he became able to act in 1999. The judgment noted that no evidence from the treating doctors supported those assertions. Considering that the plaintiff had disclosed the allegations to his family from 1990, the judge concluded on the balance of probabilities that his state of mind did not amount to a legal disability stopping the limitation period from running.
The judge additionally addressed delay. He described the delay as inordinate and found it had not been excused, including delays in prosecuting the case. However, he concluded that the passage of time would not prejudice the fourth defendant’s defence and that a fair trial could take place. He said he would have declined a permanent stay for delay if the claim had a reasonable cause of action and were not statute barred.
The court granted the relief sought on the motion and dismissed the action against the fourth defendant. The judgment does not dismiss the claims against the other defendants.