Corbett -v- Ireland & Ors [2007] IEHC 240 (25 April 2006)

Corbett -v- Ireland & Ors [2007] IEHC 240 (25 April 2006)

The court found that the Defence Forces provided appropriate training and support in the circumstances, responded reasonably to the incidents, and could not have foreseen or prevented the plaintiff's psychiatric injury. There was no breach of duty of care and the claim failed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 240
Parties
Plaintiff: Francis Corbett; Defendant: Ireland; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: The Minister for Defence
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (psychiatric Injury) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (ptsd), Personal Injury, Military Service Liability
Tort Law Military Law Negligence Duty of Care Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (ptsd) Personal Injury Military Service Liability

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Corbett

Plaintiff

Ireland

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

The Minister for Defence

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (psychiatric Injury) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defence Forces breached their duty of care to the plaintiff in relation to psychiatric injury (PTSD) sustained during overseas service
  2. 2 Whether the army provided appropriate training and support to cope with traumatic events
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's psychiatric injury was foreseeable and preventable by the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defence Forces provided appropriate training and support in the circumstances, responded reasonably to the incidents, and could not have foreseen or prevented the plaintiff's psychiatric injury. There was no breach of duty of care and the claim failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed