A 76-year-old man is suing an 86-year-old man he alleges sexually abused him 70 years ago, the High Court heard.
In High Court personal injury proceedings, it is claimed the 76-year-old confronted the older man in 2013 and that the older man admitted the alleged abuse.
The defendant denies all claims and denies he admitted the alleged abuse when the pair met in 2013.
On Tuesday, the defendant, in a pre-trial application, asked the court to dismiss the case on grounds of a 60-year delay before the action was taken and further delay afterwards.
The court heard the defendant is ill and may have to give evidence by deposition or video link.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan has reserved his decision.
The plaintiff claims abuse occurred between 1949 and 1951/2 when the defendant was in his teens and the plaintiff was aged around eight.
It is claimed the boys’ fathers were good friends and that the defendant, who worked in his father’s business, visited the plaintiff’s home on a weekly basis.
It is claimed the defendant took the young boy to a building used by his father for storage where the alleged sexual assault and false imprisonment occurred.
The alleged abuse ended when the plaintiff’s father died in 1952 and the family moved away from where they had lived, it is claimed.
The plaintiff has claimed he was suffering a psychological impediment as a result of the alleged abuse which meant he could not have taken the action sooner. The defendant was a well-known member of the local community, it is claimed.
He claims as soon as he confronted the defendant in summer 2013, when he claims there was an admission of abuse, he contacted a solicitor and was assessed by a psychiatrist.
John D. Fitzgerald SC, for the defendant, argued events of 60 to 70 years ago cannot be the subject of a trial now and his side had found no precedent for that kind of delay.
David Sutton SC, for the plaintiff, said no culpable delay had been shown by his client and the defendant had also failed to show prejudice other than saying that was a matter of “common sense”. He urged the court to reject the application to dismiss.