About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 716 and [2025] IEHC 718
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds

Delivering judgment for the High Court in November, Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds considered that the defendant’s conduct had been “reprehensible in every manner” and that the Court was obliged to mark its disapproval “both in terms of further punishment and to provide a deterrent for such behaviour” with an award of exemplary damages in both cases.

Background

Mr Sweeney purchased lands and an old dwellinghouse near the defendant’s farm holding in Letterkenny, Co Donegal.

In January 2015, Mr Sweeney was driving his digger along his right-of-way when he came upon the defendant and his son, who blocked his passage.

After a heated verbal exchange, Mr Sweeney’s vehicle was attacked with a steel nail bar and the defendant began shooting at Mr Sweeney with a shotgun. Approximately 14 shotgun pellets became embedded in Mr Sweeney’s head.

Mr Sweeney’s friend, Mr Doherty, had been travelling a short distance behind Mr Sweeney’s vehicle. The defendant proceeded to damage the vehicle in which Mr Doherty was travelling with further shots.

The Court of Appeal imposed a three-year suspended prison sentence on the defendant on condition that, inter alia, the defendant would pay compensation of €30,000 to Mr Sweeney. All terms of the Court of Appeal’s order were complied with.

Both men issued civil proceedings as against the defendant. On the day of the hearing, there was no appearance by the defendant and so the only issues left to resolve were issues of quantum and the plaintiffs’ entitlement to aggravated and exemplary damages.

The High Court

Having considered the evidence, Ms Justice Reynolds noted that the case predated the Personal Injuries Guidelines.

However, the judge determined that the Book of Quantum was of little assistance where it did not deal with psychiatric and/or psychological injuries, and where the guidance provided for eye injuries did not adequately reflect the nature of the pellet injuries to Mr Sweeney’s eye and face, his eye surgery, subsequent infection and the permanent lodgement of lead in his head and eye area.

Having regard to the residual risk that Mr Sweeney might develop cataracts or a detached retina, his eye degree of post-operative pain, the physical effects of the attack which lasted approximately 12 months and the pellets remaining embedded in his head, the court determined that an award of €35,000 in general damages was appropriate.

Turning to the psychological effects of the attack on Mr Sweeney, the court had regard to the Personal Injuries Guidelines and considered that Mr Sweeney had attended counselling from an early stage and reported an 80 per cent improvement in his symptoms within two years of the incident.

The court further considered that the related criminal proceedings and the dilatory approach taken by the defendant to the civil proceedings exacerbated Mr Sweeney’s symptoms, and that he endured a “permanent reminder of this terrifying incident” where lead remained lodged in his head.

In those circumstances, Ms Justice Reynolds awarded Mr Sweeney €45,000 for his mental anguish and psychological sequalae, which the judge considered to be the dominant injury in the case.

The judge declined to make a reduction in the overall award to Mr Sweeney in line with Collins v Parm [2024] IECA 150 where the Mr Sweeney’s case would have been finalised prior to that decision if not for the defendant’s approach to the proceedings, and where such a reduction would benefit the defendant who had behaved egregiously.

In Mr Doherty’s case, Ms Justice Reynolds noted that Mr Doherty had suffered significant psychological injuries in circumstances where the jeep in which he was travelling was “deliberately, violently, and maliciously attacked by the defendant and his son” and where he had witnessed the defendant shooting Mr Sweeney and attacking his vehicle, and was in fear for his own safety having been subjected to threats by the defendant.

In light of the medical evidence which suggested that Mr Doherty continued to experience significant symptoms of anxiety and depression over two years post-accident, the court awarded €50,000 to Mr Doherty in general damages.

As to the issue of aggravated damages, Ms Justice Reynolds opined that “It is difficult to envisage a case where all three limbs of the test are met so conclusively as the instant case”.

In respect of exemplary damages, the judge noted that the defendant’s act in withdrawing his guilty plea in the criminal proceedings and failing to engage with the civil proceedings other than obstructively “is behaviour which is not just an insult to the plaintiff but also to the court process”.

In those circumstances, the High Court awarded the plaintiffs an additional €30,000 in damages each.

The court awarded Mr Sweeney €18,005.80 in special damages, which included a sum for the repairs to Mr Sweeney’s two vehicles, and awarded Mr Doherty €7,505.00 in special damages.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court awarded Mr Sweeney a total of €128,005.80 and awarded Mr Doherty a total of €87,505.00. At a later hearing, both plaintiffs were awarded their costs.

Sweeney v Patrick J Friel [2025] IEHC 716; Doherty v Patrick J Friel [2025] IEHC 718