R v L: High Court reaffirms MN/Kemmy approach—Personal Injuries Guidelines inapplicable to child sexual abuse damages; exemplary damages affirmed and costs measured in default

Case: R v L (Approved) [2025] IEHC 595 — High Court (Waterford), Barr J, ex tempore, 30 October 2025.

Introduction

This judgment concerns the assessment of damages in a historical child sexual abuse claim following judgment in default of appearance against the defendant. The plaintiff, now 36, alleged sexual abuse at age nine by the defendant, the parent of a childhood friend, over a six-month period in 1998. The High Court addressed three broad strands:

• Procedural fairness to proceed in the defendant’s absence, including proof of service and reasonable notice.
• Substantive principles governing quantum in child sexual abuse claims, especially whether the Judicial Council’s Personal Injuries Guidelines apply, with detailed engagement with Kemmy v Murray [2025] IEHC 421 and MN v SM [2005] 4 IR 461.
• Remedies, including general damages (past and future), exemplary damages, and the measurement of costs with liberty to apply.

The judgment is significant for reaffirming that the Personal Injuries Guidelines do not determine quantum in civil claims for child sexual abuse, and for illustrating, in a default assessment, the calibration of general and exemplary damages where the abuse is serious and repeated but not at the “extreme end” of the jurisprudential spectrum.

Summary of the Judgment

• Service and proceeding in absence: The Court was satisfied that the defendant had all reasonable notice of the proceedings and of the hearing date, based on affidavits/declarations of service, including the service of the medical report by registered post and the hearing notice and ancillary documents by ordinary post. It was appropriate to proceed in the defendant’s absence.
• Findings of fact: The plaintiff was sexually abused by the defendant at age nine on approximately 10–15 occasions over March–September 1998, including genital touching and the defendant performing oral sex. The plaintiff did not disclose the abuse until these proceedings and has since experienced substantial psychological sequelae impacting trust and relationships.
• Medical evidence: The Court accepted the report and diagnosis of Dr Cian Aherne (clinical psychologist) that the plaintiff suffers from Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) linked to the abuse, likely to require significant ongoing psychotherapy (e.g., EMDR, interpersonal therapy, mindfulness/yoga).
• Applicable law: Following Kemmy v Murray, and drawing on MN v SM, the Court held that the Personal Injuries Guidelines are not determinative in child sexual abuse cases. Instead, the proper focus includes the nature, severity, timing (developmental age), and duration of the abuse, and the relationship between those factors and the psychiatric injury.
• Quantum:
  • General damages (to date): €60,000.
  • General damages (future pain and suffering): €30,000.
  • Exemplary damages (to mark the Court’s abhorrence and for punishment/deterrence): €25,000.
  • Total judgment: €115,000.
• Costs: Costs awarded to the plaintiff, measured at €36,900 (incl. VAT), with liberty to the defendant to apply within four weeks of service of the perfected order to remit the issue of costs to adjudication in default of agreement.
• Anonymity: Continuation of the existing order prohibiting publication of identifying information.

Analysis

Precedents cited and their influence

The judgment relies centrally on two authorities: MN v SM [2005] 4 IR 461 (Supreme Court) and the High Court’s recent, detailed restatement of principle in Kemmy v Murray [2025] IEHC 421 (Egan J).

• MN v SM (2005): Denham J (as she then was) articulated core principles for assessing general damages in child sexual abuse cases:
  • Damages must balance fairness to the plaintiff, fairness to the defendant, and proportionality to the overall scheme of awards.
  • The nature, severity, timing (developmental age), and duration of the abuse are pivotal. Abuse forming a “continuum” over time has consequences greater than the sum of individual assaults, and abuse at a critical developmental stage can distort and arrest normal development.
  • There is an implicit spectrum, where escalating gravity of acts (from sexual assault to rape) correlates with greater harm and higher awards.

  Barr J expressly invokes this MN framework in calibrating quantum, especially in a default assessment where fairness to the absent defendant remains a live consideration.

• Kemmy v Murray (2025 IEHC 421): Egan J exhaustively analyzed whether the Judicial Council’s Personal Injuries Guidelines govern psychiatric injury in child sexual abuse cases. She concluded they do not. Reasons include:
  • The Guidelines contain bands for psychiatric injuries (e.g., PTSD) but omit features central to child sexual abuse claims—particularly the qualitative aspects tied to the abuse itself (continuum, developmental timing, specific acts) and the distinctive, often lifelong ramifications.
  • They do not purport to assess damages for child sexual abuse and do not grapple with the complex collateral impacts (loss of home life/family networks, stigma and consequences of reporting, etc.).
  • Accordingly, courts must apply the MN methodology and weigh proportionality to comparable child sexual abuse awards and the prevailing upper limit on general damages, while recognizing that aggravated or exemplary damages may be appropriate.

  Barr J adopts Kemmy as a correct statement of the law and applies its approach. He has “regard to” the Guidelines but treats them as non-determinative, aligning with Kemmy’s conclusion that they are not designed to capture the particular harms of child sexual abuse.

Legal reasoning in R v L

1. Procedural gateway: proving service and fairness to proceed. The Court reviewed an affidavit and a declaration of service detailing delivery of the medical report by registered post and of the hearing notice and ancillary documents by ordinary post to the defendant’s home address. Having inspected the underlying documents, the Court found the defendant had “all reasonable notice” and it was proper to proceed to judgment notwithstanding his absence. This procedural rigor underscores the court’s insistence on fair notice before conducting a default assessment, which is particularly important given that credibility, intimate facts, and quantum are at stake.
2. Credibility and medical corroboration. The Court found the plaintiff’s evidence credible and “reticent” rather than exaggerated. The accepted clinical evidence (Dr Aherne) established PTSD meeting ICD‑11 criteria for CPTSD, with significant functional impairment and the need for sustained therapy. The diagnosis linked the psychiatric condition to the abuse, with identified symptom clusters and a reasoned treatment plan (EMDR, interpersonal therapy, mindfulness/yoga).
3. Applicable quantum methodology—MN/Kemmy not Guidelines. The Court:
   • Considered the abuse as repeated (10–15 occasions) and occurring at a critical developmental age (nine years old), involving serious acts (genital touching and oral sex).
   • Assessed severity by reference to MN’s focus on the nature, timing, duration, and continuum, and to Kemmy’s clear stance that the Guidelines are not determinative.
   • Noted the case was not at the “extreme end” of the spectrum (as in MN and Kemmy), but plainly serious. This nuanced positioning within the spectrum is central to proportionality analysis.
4. General damages (past and future). The Court awarded:
   • €60,000 for past pain and suffering, reflecting the historical impact (including a particularly difficult decade after the abuse) and ongoing distress.
   • €30,000 for future pain and suffering, recognizing a realistic prospect of full recovery but only with significant therapeutic intervention over time. This component acknowledges both the reasonable need for treatment and the expected trajectory of improvement.

   The past/future split transparently maps the accepted prognosis and is a useful template for structuring awards in similar cases where recovery is probable but contingent.

5. Exemplary damages. In line with Kemmy’s observation that aggravated and exemplary damages often “come to the fore” in child sexual abuse cases, Barr J awarded €25,000 as exemplary damages “to mark the court’s abhorrence” of predatory abuse of a vulnerable child. This award:
   • Signals the punitive and deterrent function of exemplary damages beyond compensation.
   • Is calibrated to a mid-range factual matrix (repeated abuse and serious sexual acts, but not the most extreme end of the spectrum).

   Notably, the Court did not make a separate aggravated damages award; the case illustrates that either head may apply, but they need not both be awarded in every case.

6. Costs measurement in a default context—liberty to apply. The Court measured costs at €36,900 (incl. VAT), reflecting brief fees for senior (€7,500) and junior counsel (€5,000) and a solicitor’s instruction fee including outlay (€17,500), while expressly preserving the defendant’s right to apply within four weeks of service of the perfected order to seek adjudication in default of agreement. This approach:
   • Balances expedition and proportionality against the absent defendant’s right to challenge quantum of costs.
   • Offers a pragmatic model for managing costs in unopposed assessments without foreclosing later scrutiny.
7. Anonymity and privacy. The continuation of the publication prohibition aligns with long-standing practice to protect the identities of parties in sexual abuse litigation.

Impact and significance

• Doctrinal clarity: Guidelines are not determinative in child sexual abuse quantification. R v L consolidates Kemmy’s analytical framework in a practical, ex tempore decision, reducing uncertainty about whether counsel should argue by reference to the Personal Injuries Guidelines’ psychiatric injury bands. The answer remains: courts may have regard to them but they do not govern damages in these cases.
• Calibrating quantum in “mid-spectrum” cases. The award—€90,000 general damages (with a clear past/future allocation) plus €25,000 exemplary—offers a concrete reference point for repeated abuse of serious sexual nature (including oral sex) at a young age, accompanied by CPTSD but with a credible pathway to recovery via therapy. While each case turns on its facts, the figures will likely inform settlement discussions and judicial assessments in similar fact patterns.
• Exemplary damages as a live, freestanding remedy. The decision reinforces that exemplary damages are available and appropriate to mark condemnation and deter predatory abuse, even when aggravated damages are not separately awarded. Expect courts to continue to consider exemplary damages where defendants exploit positions of trust or access to minors.
• Procedural guidance in default assessments. The Court’s careful treatment of service (registered and ordinary post, with supporting affidavits and documentary inspection) exemplifies best practice, particularly when proceeding in the defendant’s absence. Plaintiffs should ensure robust proof of notice, especially of hearing dates and key medical evidence.
• Pragmatic cost management with due process safeguards. Measuring costs upfront while granting liberty to apply promotes efficiency without prejudicing the absent party’s opportunity to challenge. Expect increased use of this model to avoid unnecessary adjudication where costs are facially reasonable.

Complex concepts simplified

• Ex tempore judgment: A decision delivered orally by the judge at the time of hearing (or shortly thereafter), rather than a reserved, written judgment.
• Default judgment and assessment of damages: Where the defendant fails to appear or defend, liability may be entered by default. The court then holds a hearing to assess quantum. Even in default, the court must be satisfied as to service, the credibility of evidence, and the appropriateness of the sums awarded.
• Personal Injuries Guidelines: Judicial Council guidance setting indicative compensation bands for various injuries. In child sexual abuse claims, per Kemmy and now reaffirmed in R v L, the Guidelines are not determinative because they do not address critical abuse-specific factors (continuum, developmental timing, specific acts and their unique impacts).
• MN methodology (from MN v SM): Courts balance fairness to plaintiff and defendant and proportionality to the general scheme of damages, with special emphasis on the nature, severity, timing (developmental age), and duration of the abuse (including whether it formed a continuum).
• PTSD vs CPTSD:
  • PTSD involves symptoms such as intrusive memories, avoidance, negative mood/cognition, and hyperarousal following trauma.
  • CPTSD (complex PTSD), recognized in ICD‑11, includes PTSD symptoms plus persistent disturbances in self-organization: problems with affect regulation, negative self-concept (shame/guilt), and difficulties in relationships. It often follows repeated or prolonged trauma, especially in childhood.
• Exemplary vs aggravated damages:
  • Aggravated damages compensate for additional hurt, humiliation, or distress caused by the manner of the wrong (a compensatory uplift).
  • Exemplary (punitive) damages punish and deter egregious conduct that warrants public denunciation; they are not compensatory. R v L awarded exemplary damages (€25,000) without a separate aggravated award.
• Liberty to apply: A procedural safeguard allowing a party (here, the defendant) to come back to court within a set timeframe to seek a further order—here, to remit the measured costs to adjudication if not agreed.
• Anonymity order: A restriction on publishing details that could identify the parties, routinely granted in sexual abuse cases to protect privacy and dignity.

Conclusion

R v L is a concise but important reaffirmation of Ireland’s modern approach to damages in civil child sexual abuse claims. Barr J accepts and applies the analysis in Kemmy v Murray and the principles from MN v SM, holding that the Personal Injuries Guidelines do not determine damages in these cases. The Court’s careful attention to procedural fairness in default, its structured quantification of past and future general damages in light of a CPTSD diagnosis and therapy prognosis, and its standalone award of exemplary damages furnish a practical template for trial judges and practitioners.

The key takeaways are:

• In child sexual abuse litigation, quantum turns on the MN factors—nature, severity, timing (developmental age), and duration/continuum of abuse—with proportionality to comparable awards and to the prevailing upper limit on general damages.
• The Personal Injuries Guidelines may be noted but are not determinative for these claims.
• Exemplary damages remain available and may be appropriate to mark the court’s condemnation, particularly where an adult exploits a position of trust to abuse a child.
• Measured costs with liberty to apply offer a fair and efficient mechanism in default assessments.

As a practical guidepost, the award of €90,000 in general damages (split between past and future) plus €25,000 exemplary in a non-extreme but serious and repeated abuse case will likely inform both settlement negotiations and future judicial assessments within the MN/Kemmy framework.