G.L. v Hse
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice O'Connor |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] IEHC 623 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | 2014 1934 P |
[2023] IEHC 623
2014 1934 P
AN ARD-CHÚIRT
THE HIGH COURT
The plaintiff appeared in person.
The defendant was represented by:
Harrison O'Dowd Solicitors
Gerard Clarke SC and David Boughton BL.
Judgment delivered electronically on 10 November 2023 by Mr. Justice O'Connor
. This judgment follows my order made on 6 October 2023 without objection from either party, which directed that the identity of the plaintiff, his extended family and staff members of the defendant be anonymised pursuant to s. 40 (3A) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (as inserted by s. 5 of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013) to protect the best interests and privacy rights of the children referred to in these proceedings. The applications with which this judgment is concerned are:-
(I) for leave to amend the personal injuries summons issued in January 2014 (“ the summons”);
(ii) to dismiss the proceedings as they fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
. The summons provides specifics in accordance with s. 10 (2) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (“ the 2004 Act”). Under the heading “Acts of the defendant alleged to constitute the wrong and/or Particulars of the circumstances in relation to the commission of the wrong”, it emerges that the plaintiff claims that an investigation by the defendant into the alleged abuse of his niece in early 2012 was conducted negligently and in a “deficient manner”.
. Under “Particulars” the alleged factual background is set out. The father (now deceased) of the plaintiff's then five-year-old niece (“ A.K.”) had made a complaint about the plaintiff. Social workers (“ G.A.” and “ H.A.”) attended at the home of the plaintiff's parents in February 2012 where it is alleged that G.A. “negligently, in breach of the plaintiff's constitutional rights and not in accordance with best child practice suggested in the presence of [A.K. that the plaintiff] would jump into bed beside [A.K.]”.
. The particulars of the allegations then aver:-
“The plaintiff's sister informed [the plaintiff] of what [G.A.] had suggested to his niece…. The plaintiff was horrified [and attended at a health centre] in severe distress to deny these vicious allegations and to report the negligent manner in which the Defendant's servants and/or agent had suggested to and/or coached the alleged victim that the Plaintiff would jump into bed beside her.”
. The summons alleges that the defendant did not “…put any allegation to him resulting in the Plaintiff while aware that a malicious allegation had been made being unable to defend his good name”.
. Later in February 2012 (at the top of p. 5 of the summons) a narrative is given about how another staff member of the defendant had written:-
“…to the plaintiff's sister informing her that the matter was now subject to a Garda criminal investigation and the Defendant would therefore be unable to further liaise with her until such time as sanctioned to do so by the Garda Siochana”.
. The summons then refers to the alleged “botched manner” of the defendant's investigation, the plaintiff's stress, upset and trauma.
. Following that, details are given of a District Court order made pursuant to s. 20 of the Childcare Act 1991 which led to an investigation by G.A. of A. K's circumstances. Reference is then made to the confirmation from the Gardai in August 2012 “…that the allegations were baseless and that no charges were to be brought”.
. The subsequent paragraphs of the summons repeat the coaching like questions allegedly posed by G.A. which were raised by the plaintiff at a meeting with G.A. and another staff member of the defendant on 26 October 2012. The plaintiff felt ignored and that he would not be dealt with fairly, that “he remained under suspicion of committing a heinous crime and that the Defendant was biased against him”.
. The final few paragraphs of the summons under this heading referred to the plaintiff's request for “…a review of the recommendation of the complaints officer of the defendant, CCTV footage of the alleged coaching and the appalling manner in which [the plaintiff] has been treated by the defendant, the plaintiff has no faith in any reinvestigation conducted by [the defendant]”.
. Nineteen subparagraphs of each instance of alleged negligence together with another ten subparagraphs of breaches of the plaintiff's alleged right to fair procedures are given in para. 4 of the summons.
. Para. 5 of the summons avers that the plaintiff suffered stress, upset, increased alcohol consumption, sleep difficulties, anxiety, low mood, insomnia, fleeting suicidal thoughts, constant feeling of stress, counselling and a referral to a consultant psychiatrist as a result of the wrongs of the defendant. Five categories of special damages are listed with the notation that they are “to be ascertained”.
. The summons was signed by junior and senior counsel and verified by the plaintiff by way of affidavit of verification filed in February 2014.
. The defence delivered in February 2015 does not admit the facts relating to the alleged wrongdoing and requires the plaintiff at trial to establish on the balance of probabilities that an actionable wrong was committed by the defendant. Significantly, paras. 34 – 40 of the defence plead as follows:-
“34. Further and in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, it is denied that the plaintiff suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness, or that same was shock induced, or that same were caused by any act or omission on the part of the Defendant, its servants or agents, as alleged or at all.
35. Further and in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, it is denied that the Plaintiff suffered a compensable injury as a result of any act or omission on the part of the Defendant, its servants or agents, as alleged or at all.
36. Further or in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, if the Plaintiff suffered a recognisable psychiatric injury, which is not admitted, the same were not caused by reason of any actual or apprehended physical injury to the Plaintiff or a person other than the Plaintiff, as alleged or at all.
37. Further and in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, it is denied that the Plaintiff suffered nervous shock which resulted in psychiatric illness or injury, or that the same was reasonably foreseeable by the Defendant, or that the same were caused by reason of the negligence or breach of duty or breach of statutory duty on the part of the Defendant, its servants or agents, as alleged or at all.
38. Further and in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, if the Plaintiff suffered, sustained or incurred the alleged or any personal injuries, loss damage or expense, which is not admitted, the same would not be reasonably foreseeable on the part of the Defendant, its servants or agents and the same were too remote and, in the circumstances, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief.
39. Further and in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, the defendant pleads that the Plaintiff's claim as a matter of law is not sustainable and/or the Plaintiff's claim is not sustainable for policy reasons and, in the circumstances the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.”
. In summary, the plaintiff, who was then represented and advised by solicitors, was made aware as far back as February 2015 that the defendant was maintaining that it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff in the investigation of the alleged abuse of A.K. Furthermore, the plaintiff was made aware of the defendant's position that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation because:-
(i) the injuries which are the subject of the claim do not constitute a recognisable psychiatric injury;
(ii) no claim may arise from an apprehension of a mental condition by a third party (such as the plaintiff) arising from an investigation into the alleged abuse of a child;
(iii) a claim for psychiatric or psychological complaints cannot be pursued by the plaintiff against the defendant as a matter of law.
. Following the setting down of these proceedings on 17 February 2015 an order was made by Gearty J. on 20 January 2022 directing the defendant to make discovery relating to all documents in relation to the investigation conducted by the defendant in respect of allegations of child sex abuse made against the plaintiff, complaints made by the plaintiff against the defendant arising out of their investigation, the protocols in place in 2012 for the carrying out of interviews and the complaints about the conduct of the defendant made by the plaintiff in 2012. A detailed affidavit as to documents was sworn in July 2020 on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff's solicitors then furnished an updated list of reports from experts intended to be called at trial along with a list of witnesses in January 2021. Corresponding updating schedules on behalf of the defendant were delivered in January 2022. The proceedings came on for hearing before Hanna J. on 13 January 2022 and 14 January 2022.
. Senior counsel for the plaintiff explained to Hanna J. that which was pleaded in the summons and said according to the transcript:-
“In many ways it would probably be fair to say that the plaintiff has become completely obsessed with what occurred on this particular occasion. His doctors have certainly given the opinion that he needs this case over and done with so that he can get on with his life.”
. Hanna J. sought to clarify whether the claim was “a nervous shock case which resulted from a phone call from his sister to...
To continue reading
Request your trial