THE SUPREME Court has unanimously dismissed the State’s bid to overturn an award of €214,000 in damages to a Dublin man who successfully challenged the constitutionality of laws under which his wife got an interim barring order against him.
After the relevant provisions of the Domestic Violence Act were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2002, the State conceded in the High Court it was liable for damages to the man for breach of his constitutional rights.
After the High Court assessed damages at €214,000, the State appealed to the Supreme Court and asked to be allowed to dispute liability in a fresh hearing before the High Court. It sought to have the High Court decide the issue of the State’s liability for damages when rights are affected by acts done under an Act of the Oireachtas later found to be unconstitutional.
The award included €50,000 damages for loss of reputation, €40,000 for loss of his right to enjoy children and marital privacy, €25,000 for emotional and psychological suffering, €45,000 for general inconvenience due to loss of adequate housing, and €20,000 for unlawful arrest.
A sum of €100,000 was paid out, but a stay was placed on payment of the balance pending the outcome of the State’s appeal.
Giving the five-judge court’s decision yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, ruled the State was not entitled to have the liability issue reopened, and he upheld the damages award.
He stressed the decision related only to the man’s case, and issues concerning the State’s liability for damages for breaches of personal rights due to acts done under laws later declared unconstitutional could be litigated by the State in other cases as they arise.
In this case, the State had every option to defend the man’s claim on all issues, and it would be unjust to him and an abuse of the court’s process to allow the State to have the case reopened now.
“The situation the State finds itself in is of its own making,” Mr Justice Murray said.
The 1998 interim barring order against the man was made on the ex parte application of his wife, who alleged abuse, including physical abuse, often associated with excessive drinking over the previous 1½ years. The man denied the claims. He and his wife were never reconciled.
The District Court had on November 6th, 1998, made an interim order barring the man from the family home until February 3rd, 1999. He became aware of that order on November 8th, and applied to the District Court to terminate it. He was arrested on November 15th when he refused to leave his wife’s home, and released on bail on the night of November 16/17th. He initiated his challenge to the constitutionality of the laws on February 3rd, 1999.
After he won his challenge, the man claimed he was entitled to damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages.
