R v L (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion records an assessment of damages following a judgment entered in default of appearance. The Plaintiff obtained judgment in default against the Defendant on 2 December 2024. The matter came on for hearing before the High Court sitting in Waterford for assessment of damages; the Defendant did not appear. The court considered service affidavits sworn by Attorney Bilous-Novichenko which demonstrated postal service of a medical report and of letters advising of the hearing dates. The court found that the Defendant had reasonable notice and proceeded to assessment in the Defendant's absence.

The factual account accepted by the court is that the Plaintiff was sexually abused by the Defendant when the Plaintiff was nine years old between March and September 1998. The Plaintiff gave evidence describing repeated assaults (approximately 10–15 occasions), including kissing, touching of genitals and oral sexual activity. The Plaintiff described long-term psychological effects, difficulties with relationships and trust, and ongoing symptoms following hip surgery which limited distracting activities. A clinical psychological report prepared following an interview (and dated 22 August 2022, based on a 14 July 2022 interview) diagnosed complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) and recommended long-term therapeutic interventions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court could properly proceed to assessment of damages in the Defendant's absence, having regard to the service evidence provided.
2. What is the appropriate assessment of general damages for historical child sexual abuse and associated psychiatric injury (CPTSD) in this case?
3. Whether the Personal Injury Guidelines apply to the assessment of damages in child sexual abuse cases, and how authorities relevant to child sexual abuse (including the approach in the case cited as Case C v Case D) should be applied.
4. Whether exemplary (punitive) damages are appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
5. How the Plaintiff's legal costs should be measured and whether the Defendant should be given an opportunity to apply to remit costs to adjudication.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Position

• The Plaintiff gave evidence recounting the historical abuse and its ongoing psychological impact and relied upon the medical report diagnosing CPTSD.
• Through Attorney Sheehan the Plaintiff proposed that the court measure the Plaintiff's costs in accordance with an estimate of fees put forward at the hearing and submitted that doing so would expedite the conclusion of the matter and save costs of adjudication.

Defendant's Position

• The Defendant did not appear at the assessment hearing and therefore did not advance arguments in court on the matters addressed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in the following sequence:

1. Service and Procedural Competence: The court examined the affidavit and declaration of Attorney Bilous-Novichenko and related documents demonstrating that the medical report and notice letters were posted to the Defendant's home address (some by registered prepaid envelope, others by prepaid ordinary post). The court concluded the Defendant had reasonable notice of the proceedings and the assessment hearing and that it was appropriate to proceed despite the Defendant's non-appearance.
2. Acceptance of Evidence: The court accepted the Plaintiff's oral evidence as to the historical abuse and accepted the contents and conclusions of the medical report prepared by Attorney Aherne (clinical psychologist), including the diagnosis of CPTSD and the prognosis that long-term therapeutic intervention was required.
3. Legal Framework: The court reviewed the law on assessment of damages in historical child sex abuse cases, endorsing the analysis in Case A v Case B as correctly stating that the Personal Injury Guidelines are not determinative for such claims because they do not account for the specific features of child sexual abuse (nature, timing, duration, continuum effects, impact on development and relationships). The court also relied upon the criteria set out in Case C v Case D (Judge Denham) and the balance of fairness to plaintiff and defendant and proportionality to the general scheme of damages.
4. Application to Facts: Applying those principles, the court considered the nature and severity of the abuse (repeated assaults over approximately six months when the Plaintiff was nine), the psychiatric diagnosis (CPTSD), the long-term impact on relationships and functioning, and relevant comparative considerations (noting the case did not fall at the extreme end represented in some authorities). The court noted the Plaintiff had been candid and not exaggerating his symptoms.
5. Assessment of Damages: The court quantified general damages at €60,000 to date and awarded €30,000 for future suffering and disablement, reasoning that significant further psychological intervention was likely necessary though a full recovery was likely in time. The court also considered exemplary damages appropriate to mark its abhorrence of the Defendant's conduct and awarded €25,000 for that purpose.
6. Costs: The court accepted the reasonableness of the fee estimate advanced by Attorney Sheehan as fair but, because the Defendant had not had notice or opportunity to comment, the court measured costs in accordance with that estimate while giving the Defendant four weeks from perfection and service of the order to apply to remit costs to adjudication. The measured figure for fees exclusive of VAT was €30,000, and inclusive of VAT the total was €36,900. The court awarded costs to the Plaintiff to include reserved and discovery costs.
7. Protective Order: The court continued the existing order prohibiting publication of any facts that would tend to identify either party.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court gave judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of €115,000.

Breakdown of the award (as ordered by the court):

• General damages to date: €60,000.
• Future suffering and disablement: €30,000.
• Exemplary damages: €25,000.

Costs and ancillary orders:

• The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the action, to include all reserved and discovery costs.
• The Plaintiff's legal costs are measured at €36,900 inclusive of VAT (fees exclusive of VAT: €30,000).
• The Defendant has liberty to apply within four weeks of service of the perfected order to have the issue of costs remitted to adjudication in default of agreement.
• The pre-existing order prohibiting publication identifying either party is continued.

Implications:

• The decision applies the analytical approach endorsed in Case A v Case B and the criteria from Case C v Case D when assessing damages for child sexual abuse and psychiatric injury, reiterating that the Personal Injury Guidelines are not determinative for such claims.
• The ruling has direct consequences only for the parties in this case (monetary judgment, costs measurement, and the continuation of anonymity/prohibition on identifying publication). The opinion does not purport to create a new legal principle beyond endorsing and applying the authority it cites.

Note: All personal names and identifying details in this summary have been replaced with consistent placeholders to preserve anonymity in accordance with the instructions governing this summary. The content reflects only what was stated in the provided opinion.