Doherty (A. P. U. M.) -v- Quigley [2011] IEHC 361 (05 July 2011)

Doherty (A. P. U. M.) -v- Quigley [2011] IEHC 361 (05 July 2011)

The Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she was under a disability within the meaning of s.48 or s.48A of the Statute of Limitations 1957 for the relevant period, and thus her claim was statute-barred. The Court did not make a finding on the truth of the abuse allegations but determined the case on the limitation issue.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 361
Parties
Plaintiff: Dana Doherty; Defendant: Michael Quigley
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Civil Action / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed as statute-barred
Legal Topics
Sexual Abuse, Statute of Limitations, Disability and Unsound Mind, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Assessment of Damages
Tort Law Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Psychiatric Injury Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations Disability and Unsound Mind Post Traumatic Stress Disorder +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dana Doherty

Plaintiff

Michael Quigley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Civil Action / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant committed acts of sexual abuse as alleged by the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was a person of unsound mind so as to suspend the limitation period under s.48 of the Statute of Limitations 1957
  3. 3 Whether s.48A of the Statute of Limitations 1957 (as inserted by the 2000 Act) applies to the plaintiff's psychological injury

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she was under a disability within the meaning of s.48 or s.48A of the Statute of Limitations 1957 for the relevant period, and thus her claim was statute-barred. The Court did not make a finding on the truth of the abuse allegations but determined the case on the limitation issue.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed as statute-barred

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • No order as to costs specified