About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 595
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Anthony Barr

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Anthony Barr in awarding damages was satisfied that the plaintiff would require significant psychological intervention to fully recover from his complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and found it appropriate to mark the court’s abhorrence of the defendant’s predatory conduct with an award of exemplary damages.

Background

On 2 December 2024, the plaintiff obtained judgment in default of appearance against the defendant. The case came before the High Court for an assessment of damages.

The plaintiff’s case was that when he was nine years of age, he was friendly with the defendant’s son and used to visit his house to play and to sleep-over. 

The plaintiff alleged that was sexually abused by the defendant on 10–15 occasions between March and September 1998 whilst visiting the defendant’s home, and that the defendant would abuse him while he was asleep in the defendant’s house and would also call him in from the garden where he was playing with the defendant’s son to commit acts of abuse.

The plaintiff described how the abuse affected him, including that he had not told anybody about the assaults until he instituted his proceedings and that he had had difficulty sustaining relationships and friendships. The plaintiff had also exhibited behavioural problems in the form of difficulties at school, and having an attachment to fast cars and motorcycles as a means of escaping the memory of his trauma.

A medical report furnished to the court concluded that the plaintiff was suffering with complex post-traumatic stress disorders (CPTSD) as a result of the abuse, the symptoms of which were at their worst in the 10 years following the abuse but continued to affect his daily functioning.

The High Court

Mr Justice Barr considered the principles outlined by former Chief Justice Susan Denham in MN v. SM [2005] 4 IR 461 and by Ms Justice Emily Egan in Kemmy v Murray [2025] IEHC 421 on the assessment of damages in historical child sex abuse cases such as the plaintiff’s, which found that factors such as the nature and duration of the psychological injury, the nature and severity of the abuse, the timing relative to the developmental age of the plaintiff, and the duration of the sexual abuse suffered were all relevant.

Noting that the court was obliged to have regard to the nature, severity, timing and duration of the abuse and to its effect on the plaintiff, the judge explained that while the abuse in the plaintiff’s case did not fall at the extreme end of abuse, it nonetheless took place on between 10–15 occasions when the plaintiff was a young child and was therefore vulnerable.

Finding that the abuse itself was of a “reasonably severe nature”, the court highlighted that the plaintiff had not tried to exaggerate the effect of the abuse while giving his evidence and if anything, was reticent in his description of the abuse and its effects.

The court accepted the contents of the medical report and considered that the plaintiff had made very positive steps towards his recovery such as confiding the fact of the abuse with his current partner, whilst noting that nonetheless, the report was of the opinion that the plaintiff would require significant psychiatric treatment into the future to achieve a full recovery.

Mr Justice Barr further considered that the court was to be fair in the award of damages to both the plaintiff and the defendant, particularly where the defendant had not appeared to defend the case in any way. 

The court also had regard to the Personal Injury Guidelines, explaining that for the reasons set out in Kemmy, same were not determinative of the appropriate level of the award as in other kinds of personal injury actions.

Having regard to all of the circumstances of the case, including that it would take time and significant psychological intervention for the plaintiff to make a full recovery from his psychiatric injuries, Mr Justice Barr awarded €60,000 in general damages to the plaintiff and a further €30,000 for his future suffering and disablement.

The judge was also satisfied that it could make an award of exemplary damages of €25,000 to mark the court’s abhorrence of “the conduct of the defendant in preying on a vulnerable young boy for his sexual gratification”.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court awarded judgment as against the defendant in the sum of €115,000, awarded costs to the plaintiff and measured those costs at €36,900 including VAT.

R v L [2025] IEHC 595