Factual and Procedural Background
In 2021, the School settled the Plaintiff’s claim for injuries sustained on 19 April 2018. The Plaintiff recovered €90,000 plus costs pursuant to an order made on 8 March 2022. The School subsequently sought an indemnity or contribution from the Church under an amended notice dated 15 May 2024. The Church had known that the School intended to participate in settlement negotiations but had not consented to the settlement. [1]
The injury occurred when a bramble shoot tore the Plaintiff’s skin while the three-year-old Plaintiff was playing in a garden area at the Church’s parish centre, which the School used during school terms. [2][3]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Church was a wrongdoer that contributed to the Plaintiff’s injuries. [4]
- If so, what contribution would be just and equitable having regard to the Church’s degree of fault. [4]
- Whether the Church breached its duty of care to the Plaintiff or the School in relation to the bramble hazard. [5]
Arguments of the Parties
School’s Arguments
- The Church inadequately maintained the garden and failed to detect or remove brambles despite knowing that children used the area recreationally. [6]
- The Church should have warned the School about brambles and identified and removed the particular bramble shoot. [7][8]
- The Church’s lack of knowledge of the School’s safety policy created an obligation to identify the hazard to the School. [9]
- The School relied on O' Shaughnessy's v Limerick County Council and others in support of the proposition that the defendants had played parts with varying degrees of responsibility. [10][11]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Heaves v Westmeath County Council [2001] 10 JIC 1702 |
An occupier must take reasonable care and no more; the duty is not one of strict liability, and conduct must not be judged with hindsight. |
The Court applied this approach in assessing whether the Church should reasonably have identified and removed a bramble shoot that had apparently grown over only a few days. [12][13][14] |
| O' Shaughnessy's v Limerick County Council and others 2015 IEHC 389 |
The defendants in that case had played parts with varying degrees of responsibility. |
The Court distinguished the precedent because, unlike that case, neither the School nor the Church relied on the other for advice or instructions. [10][11][15] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Church owed the common duty of care to visitors under section 3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995, an issue that was not disputed. [16]
The Court found that both the Church and the School were unaware of the bramble shoot. The School had a daily inspection procedure, supervised outdoor play with two adults, and a risk assessment requiring the garden to be checked before outdoor activities. [9][17][18][19][20]
The Church had regularly maintained the grounds, including grass cutting, hedge trimming, strimming and removal of brambles. No person had seen the relevant bramble before the incident, and the Court concluded that it had probably grown over the few days since maintenance on 24 March 2018. [9][21][22]
The Court rejected the argument that the Church had an additional duty to warn the School about, or remove, the shoot. The teachers’ own inspection system had not detected the hazard, and there was no evidence that the Church had been notified of a bramble problem. [23][24][25]
The Court considered it unreasonable to expect the Church to anticipate a single bramble shoot arising between regular maintenance operations, particularly where the School promoted supervised exploration of the natural environment. [26][15]
The Court also accepted evidence that the gardens were maintained to a high standard suitable for general use and occupation. [27]
Accordingly, the School failed to establish that the Church breached its common duty of care or contributed to the injury. [25][15]
Holding and Implications
The School’s claim for a contribution from the Church was dismissed. [28]
The Court indicated that the Church was entitled to the costs of the proceedings under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, subject to any submission concerning the Church’s conduct in defending the claim. [28]
The direct effect was that the School obtained no indemnity or contribution from the Church. The opinion discusses no broader implications and did not establish a new precedent.