Murtagh v Minister For Defence & ors [2018] IESC 37 (31 July 2018)

Murtagh v Minister For Defence & ors [2018] IESC 37 (31 July 2018)

The Supreme Court held that while the trial judge's interventions were excessive and undesirable, they did not prevent the parties from presenting their cases or amount to constitutional unfairness. There was no objective bias or basis for recusal. The plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred as the requisite knowledge of PTSD did not arise until after the limitation period. The findings of negligence and the quantum of damages were supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] IESC 37
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Victor Murtagh; Defendant/appellant: Minister for Defence; Defendant/appellant: Ireland; Defendant/appellant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (ptsd), Statute of Limitations, Judicial Conduct, Objective Bias
Tort Law Personal Injury Military Law Negligence Duty of Care Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (ptsd) Statute of Limitations Judicial Conduct +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Murtagh

Plaintiff/respondent

Minister for Defence

Defendant/appellant

Ireland

Defendant/appellant

The Attorney General

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's conduct rendered the trial unfair
  2. 2 Whether objective bias existed requiring recusal
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the Statute of Limitations

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while the trial judge's interventions were excessive and undesirable, they did not prevent the parties from presenting their cases or amount to constitutional unfairness. There was no objective bias or basis for recusal. The plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred as the requisite knowledge of PTSD did not arise until after the limitation period. The findings of negligence and the quantum of damages were supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No retrial ordered
  • High Court judgment and damages award affirmed