A woman with psychological and psychiatric difficulties has failed in a bid to re-enter her case against the HSE and the State over an alleged failure to provide her with an appropriate residential placement 20 years ago.
During her teens, the woman was detained in the care of the then Eastern Regional Health Board at a centre for children and was also placed in a special care unit for troubled teens.
After a period of time in those units, she was transferred and detained at Psychiatric Hospital under the Mental Treatment Act.
The woman, who is now aged in her mid-thirties, commenced High Court judicial review proceedings against the HSE, the Ministers for Health and Children, Ireland and the Attorney General in 2000.
The Child and Family Agency were added as a defendant to the original proceedings.
She sought various reliefs, including a declaration that the respondents had failed to ensure that an appropriate placement was provided for her in a high support unit during her time in care having regard to her special needs.
The case was due to be heard in 2002, but due to her fragile, psychological and psychiatric state was unable to proceed. Her claim was struck out in 2006.
She sought permission in 2017 to have her action re-entered but in her judgement, Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds refused to do so after finding inordinate and inexcusable delay in the manner she pursued her claim.
Most of the woman’s original claim was now irrelevant, and in essence, her claim was one for damages.
The respondents had argued that the case should not be re-entered on the grounds of delay by the woman. The respondents also claimed they were prejudiced due to the unavailability of material witnesses who are now dead.
The judge said the woman had argued that the delay was caused by the applicant’s psychological and psychiatric difficulties, which she claimed were caused by the respondent’s actions.
The woman also claimed that since 2002, with some interruptions, she was unable to manage her affairs, and was not in a position to prosecute her claim.
The judge said that in this case, “it was clear” the delay between 2002 and 2017 was “inordinate”.
Health problems
While it had been submitted the delay was excusable due to the woman’s health problems, the judge said that during the period of delay, the woman had married, given birth, and subsequently had to deal with the breakdown of her relationship.
A medical report from 2014 stated that the woman had capacity, and was at all times full legally advised, the judge said.
The delay in the case “was entirely attributable to the actions or inactions on the part of the applicant,” the judge said, adding that cases must be litigated “in a timely fashion.”
The court was also satisfied the extent of the delay was such that it would not be possible to to have a fair trial where the balance of justice is against the case proceeding.
It was “simply inconceivable” that the respondents would be in a position to properly defend the proceedings, the judge said.
In all the circumstances the judge said she was satisfied the woman was guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay in the manner in which she pursued her claim.
Her failure in this regard has resulted in serious prejudice to the respondents in terms of their ability to defend the claim, and the court was satisfied to refuse the application to re-enter the case.