High Court allows civil claim for aggravated and exemplary damages due to defendant's guilty plea and obstructive conduct.

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 716

[Record No. 2016/10354P]

BETWEEN

GERARD SWEENEY

PLAINTIFF

AND

PATRICK J FRIEL

DEFENDANT

Judgment of Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds delivered on the 10th day of November 2025.

Introduction

1. This case concerns a shooting incident in Churchill, Letterkenny, County Donegal in 2015, involving two neighbouring farmers. The plaintiff was accessing his lands, situate adjacent to the defendant’s lands, and using his right-ofway to gain such access when the defendant violently and viciously attacked him. During the incident, the plaintiff sustained shotgun wounds to his head. The plaintiff suffered significant physical and psychological sequalae and brings a claim for compensatory damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages.

The facts

2. Some months prior to this incident, the plaintiff purchased lands and an old dwellinghouse near the defendant’s farm holding. On the day in question, the 3rd of January 2015, the plaintiff was driving his digger along his right-of-way when he met the defendant and his son. His passage was blocked and heated words were exchanged between the parties. The plaintiff was verbally abused, and his vehicle was attacked with a steel nail bar. The defendant produced a shotgun and began shooting at the plaintiff. Shots smashed through both windows of the vehicle and approximately fourteen pellets became embedded in the plaintiff's head. The plaintiff's friend, Mr Shaun Doherty (the plaintiff in related proceedings), was travelling a short distance behind the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant then turned his attention to the jeep in which Mr Doherty was travelling and proceeded to damage it with further shotgun blasts.

3. Mr Doherty alerted local gardaí who arrived at the scene and investigated the incident. The plaintiff was removed by ambulance to Letterkenny hospital and was transferred on to Galway University Hospital for treatment of his injuries.

Criminal proceedings

4. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Section 3 Assault (assault causing harm) and one count of possession of a firearm without a firearms certificate. In July 2017, the presiding Circuit Court judge (his Honour Judge John O'Hagan) applied the Probation Act in respect of both counts at the sentencing hearing.

5. On appeal, that sentence was quashed and a sentence of three years imprisonment imposed in lieu, suspended for three years on the following terms and conditions: - ‘that he [the defendant] keep the peace and be of good behaviour and not commit any offence for 3 years from today’s date and that pursuant to Sect

6 Criminal Justice Act 1993 he pay compensation to Gerald Sweeney…..in the sum of €30,000-00 within 9 months of today’s date…..and he seek to avoid any contact with the victim or any members of the victim’s family.” That judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal on the 17th of May 2018. All terms of the order have been complied with.

Civil proceedings

6. The within proceedings were commenced by way of plenary summons in 2016. Since that time (and indeed prior to the service of the proceedings wherein an application for substituted service was required) the defendant has sought to delay matters at every turn as outlined in the chronology below:

Plenary summons – 21 November 2016

Order for substituted service – 6 March 2017

Statement of claim – 8 March 2017

Memorandum of appearance – 2 August 2017

Order striking out motion for judgment in default of defence – 18 December 2017 Further order allowing the defendant six weeks to deliver defence – 12 February 2018 Defence – 2 May 2018 Notice of change of defendant’s solicitor – 04 August 2021 Order allowing defendant’s solicitor to come off records – 21 February 2022.

7. Despite pleading guilty to the criminal charges brought against him, the defendant instructed his solicitor to file a full defence which included allegations of criminal and unlawful conduct on the part of the plaintiff, self-defence on the part of the defendant and accidental discharge of the firearm. The defendant later instructed a new firm of solicitors who came on record in August 2021 but ceased acting for him in February 2022. There was no appearance by the defendant on the day of the hearing or indeed on any later date. I was satisfied from the evidence elicited from the plaintiff’s solicitor that the defendant had been duly notified of the hearing dates and was given significant advance notice in respect of same. Issues to be determined.

8. In circumstances where the proceedings were undefended, the only issues to be resolved are quantum (both in respect of general damages and special damages) and the plaintiff’s entitlement or otherwise to aggravated and exemplary damages. The plaintiff’s evidence.

9. The plaintiff gave evidence of driving his digger up the laneway on the day in question when he met the defendant and his son. The plaintiff was aware that they were very unhappy about his use of the right-of-way and wanted to take away his access. The plaintiff stated he tried to proceed past them up to the dwelling on his lands but his passage was blocked. The plaintiff was threatened and verbally abused and the defendant demanded that he get off the lane way. The situation became extremely volatile with the defendant producing a shotgun and discharging shots in his direction.

10. His evidence was that multiple shots were fired, smashing through the windows of the digger. He was hit by several pellets, one of which became lodged in his eye, and he subsequently lost consciousness. He was terrified and in fear for his own life and that of his friend, Mr Doherty, who was travelling a short distance behind him. Some fourteen pellets were embedded in his face and eye for which he required surgery. He stated that some pellets remain in situ as they could not be surgically removed safely. Others were successfully removed from his nose, eyelid and around the eye area.

11. In addition to his physical injuries, he suffered significant psychological sequelae including stress and anxiety. He was diagnosed as suffering from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Fortunately, with counselling and intermittent medication, his symptoms have now resolved. He stated that during the criminal investigation his guns were removed from his home, and he was deprived of his recreational activities with the local shooting club where he was an avid member. It was two years before the guns were returned to him. He stated that whilst he had already become socially withdrawn and isolated arising from anxiety, matters were further compounded by his loss of engagement with the gun club. In terms of relations with the defendant, he indicated that they continue to live near one another but have managed to stay out of each other's way. There has been no further conflict between them.

The injuries

12. The court had the benefit of several medical reports as follows: -

(a) Dr C.J. Haley, Consultant Psychiatrist dated 28 November 2016.

(b) Mr Frank Kinsella, Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon dated 17 April 2018.

(c) Dr John McFeely, GP dated 11 June 2015.

(d) Philip O'Rourke, Counsellor/Psychotherapist dated 22 July 2016.

13. The plaintiff was initially seen at the A&E Department of Letterkenny General Hospital by the casualty consultant who treated the bleeding from his eye and face and removed pellet fragments from his eye. The plaintiff was thereafter referred to Galway University Hospital and came under the care of Mr Kinsella, Ophthalmic Surgeon. Upon admission, the plaintiff complained of blurred vision and floaters in his left eye. Examination revealed evidence of an inflamed right eye with an old corneal scar and evidence of a left scleral nasal penetrating injury from gun pellets. A CT scan revealed multiple metallic foreign bodies in the right lateral canthal skin, left upper eyelid medially, inner aspect of the left inferomedial scleral and the left cheek.

14. The plaintiff had pellet material removed from the right lateral canthus and left medial upper lid. He then underwent primary repair for his left scleral perforation the following day with an injection of intra-vitriol antibiotics. The plaintiff was reviewed by the maxillofacial consultant two days later who felt that no further surgical intervention was required. He was discharged home on topical drops.

15. On final review by Mr Kinsella, Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon, the plaintiff had normal vision in both eyes with no evidence of any ocular abnormality. Mr Kinsella opined that whilst the plaintiff had sustained a penetrating left eye injury from a shotgun wound, he had made an extremely good recovery with a small risk that he may eventually develop cataracts or a detached retina.

16. After discharge from hospital, the plaintiff came under the care of his GP, Dr G McFeely. He attended on the 10th of January 2015 complaining of pain in his eye and insomnia. He was prescribed analgesia and sleeping tablets. Upon further review on the 2nd of February the plaintiff complained of chest pains and returned the following day with a sticky infected left eye which required treatment. The plaintiff's GP opined that he was suffering from stress and noted that he was attending with Mr Philip O'Rourke for counselling. The plaintiff had self-referred to Mr O'Rourke on the advice of the medical team at Galway University Hospital who had treated his gunshot wounds.

17. The plaintiff was also seen by Dr C.J. Haley, Consultant Psychiatrist in November 2016. Dr Haley opined that the plaintiff had suffered significant mental health consequences as a result of the shooting incident. He was satisfied that the plaintiff had a reaction which was post-traumatic in nature in circumstances where the plaintiff was hyper-aroused, had prominent insomnia, was hypervigilant and was reexperiencing the incident causing him acute distress. However, he noted that his symptoms appeared to settle quite quickly into a more general picture of mixed anxiety and depression. Dr Haley was of the view that the plaintiff was getting great benefit from appropriate counselling and that his prognosis was good. He commended the plaintiff's perseverance with his treatment and noted his positive mental attitude which he felt placed him at a minimal risk of future mental illness.

Quantum

18. This is a Book of Quantum case in circumstances where it predates the commencement of the Personal Injuries Guidelines. However, the Book of Quantum is of little assistance to the court in circumstances where it fails to deal with psychiatric and/or psychological injuries. In any event, I am satisfied that the guidance provided for eye injuries does not adequately reflect the nature of the pellet injuries to the plaintiff’s eye and face and fails to take account of eye surgery, subsequent infection, and the permanent lodgement of lead in the eye and head area.

19. The plaintiff sustained a penetrating left eye injury from which he has made a good recovery, albeit with the residual risk that he may eventually develop cataracts or a detached retina. It is evident from the reports that he experienced a high degree of pain postoperatively and that the effects from a physical point of view lasted approximately twelve months. He also endures a permanent reminder of the events in circumstances where some lead remains embedded in his head. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the physical injuries collectively attract general damages in the sum of €35,000.

20. As already outlined, the Book of Quantum offers no guidance on psychiatric injuries. However, the court has the benefit of the guidance set out in the Personal Injuries Guidelines as to how such injuries are to be approached and the considerations affecting the level of the award as follows: - “(i) age.

(ii) interference with quality of life and education.

(iii) impact on work.

(iv) impact on interpersonal relationships.

(v) whether medical assistance has been sought.

(vi) nature, extent, and duration of treatment undertaken and/or

medication prescribed.

(vii) success of treatment.

(viii) prognosis, to include any future vulnerability.

(ix) the extent and/or nature of any associated physical injuries.”

21. The plaintiff is now 53 years of age (42 at the time of the incident) and is a married man with children. His concern for his own safety extended also to that of his family. The plaintiff lost all interest in his farm work and social activities for a minimum of twelve months post incident and became isolated and withdrawn. He suffered loss of appetite, became irritable and withdrawn and required intermittent medication for insomnia. Fortunately, he sought out counselling on medical advice at an early stage and as a result reported an 80% improvement in symptoms within two years of the incident. However, he suffered a significant exacerbation of his symptoms due to the ongoing nature of the criminal proceedings which were only finalised in May 2018. An added stressor has been the approach taken by the defendant from the outset in relation to these proceedings. He further endures a permanent reminder of this terrifying incident as some lead from the pellets is still lodged in his head.

22. I am satisfied that the mental anguish and psychological sequalae suffered by the plaintiff is the dominant injury in this case due to the nature and longevity of the plaintiff’s symptoms. Further, and in light of all the above considerations, I am satisfied that an award of €45,000 is appropriate.

23. In the ordinary course and having regard to the jurisprudence in personal injury litigation, I am obliged to look at an appropriate reduction in the overall award in line with Collins v Parm [2024] IECA 150. However, I'm satisfied that in the particular circumstances of this case such an adjustment would create an injustice to the plaintiff in view of the relatively recent delivery of that decision and the fact that the plaintiff's case should have long since been finalised had it not been for the defendant's approach to the proceedings. A further consideration for the court is that such a reduction would be to the defendant's advantage, and the court cannot countenance such an outcome considering his egregious behaviour. In any event, I am satisfied that the sums awarded in this case are separate and distinct - one is for the plaintiff’s physical suffering and the other relates to his adverse mental health outcome - albeit with some temporal overlap.

Aggravated and exemplary damages

24. The plaintiff seeks aggravated damages in circumstances where it is contended that the defendant's actions have exacerbated the plaintiff’s suffering. In this regard, senior counsel for the plaintiff relied on the seminal authority of Conway v Irish National Teachers Organisation [1991] 2 IR 305. In that case, Finlay CJ established a test to determine what constituted aggravated damages and stated: - “2.[A]ggravated damages… [are] compensatory damages increased by reason of: a.

the manner in which the wrong was committed, involving such

elements as oppressiveness, arrogance or outrage, or

b. the conduct of the wrongdoer after the commission of the wrong, such as a refusal to apologise or to ameliorate the harm done or the making of threats to repeat the wrong, or c. the conduct of the wrongdoer and/or his representatives in the defence of the claim of the wronged plaintiff, up to and including the trial of the action.” Finlay CJ further stated that the list cited was not a finite or exhaustive list and that the measurement of aggravated damages should reflect “in part a recognition of the added hurt or insult to a plaintiff who has been wronged, and in part also a recognition of the cavalier or outrageous conduct of the defendant.”

25. It is difficult to envisage a case where all three limbs of the test are met so conclusively as the instant case. The manner in which the plaintiff was unlawfully attacked and grievously injured was outrageous and the defendant’s conduct thereafter has been reprehensible. Having entered a guilty plea in the criminal proceedings he then sought to resile from that position and has embroiled the plaintiff in costly and lengthy civil proceedings. The prolonged litigation has caused further distress and upset for the plaintiff and denied him the opportunity to move on from these traumatic events.

26. Exemplary damages are also sought by the plaintiff and again reliance is placed on the Conway case, para. 82 as follows: “The purpose of awarding such damages is truly to make an example of the wrongdoer so as to show others that such wrongdoing will not be tolerated and, more to the point, will not be relieved on payment of merely compensatory damages.” The Supreme Court elaborated on the definition of exemplary damages by stating that such damages and punitive damages constitute the same element. It is clear from settled case law in this area that exemplary damages are awarded to make an example of the wrongdoer. In addition to the guidance provided on the measurement of compensatory damages in Conway, senior counsel for the plaintiff also relied on McIntyre v Lewis & Donal [1991] SC ITLR (22 APR) where the Supreme Court, in awarding exemplary damages, stated: ‘Everything which aggravates or mitigates the defendant's conduct is relevant.’

27. In the instant case, the plaintiff claims both aggravated and exemplary damages asserting that the defendant's conduct, both in the defence he has pleaded and by the manner by which he has approached this case and the judicial process is an insult not only to the plaintiff (aggravated damages), but also an insult to the court (exemplary damages). Despite pleading guilty to criminal charges, the defendant resiled from that position and his failure to engage in the within proceedings, other than in an obstructive manner, is behaviour which is not just an insult to the plaintiff but also to the court process. Having filed a full defence, he thereafter swore an affidavit of verification (dated 18 Jan 2019) asserting that the facts contained in it were true, in the face of having entered a guilty plea in the criminal proceedings and paying compensation. It is difficult to comprehend his actions in all the circumstances which are tantamount to a flagrant abuse of the court process.

Consideration of the claim for aggravated and exemplary damages

28. Considering the foregoing, I am satisfied that the defendant’s actions in the conduct of the proceedings have exacerbated the plaintiff’s suffering, prolonged his recovery, and denied him the opportunity to move on from this traumatic attack. The proceedings issued in 2016 and have taken almost ten years to reach fruition. It is further incumbent on the court, in my view, to mark its disapproval at his deplorable behaviour by making an award of exemplary damages.

29. Having duly considered the guidance offered by senior counsel to the court on recent awards for aggravated and exemplary damages (for which I am grateful) I am satisfied that the appropriate award, in all the circumstances, is €30,000.00.

Special damages

30. A figure of €18,005.80 is claimed in respect of special damages and includes a sum for repairs to the two vehicles damaged by the defendant (both of which were owned by the plaintiff), the solicitor’s fee in respect of the PIAB application, together with medical and travel expenses. I am satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to recoup the entirety of this sum.

Final orders

31. The total award therefore is €128,005.80. Before making final orders, the court seeks the assistance of the plaintiff’s solicitor to serve a hard copy of this judgment upon the defendant in the manner adopted for service as necessary during the proceedings along with a covering letter advising that the court will make final orders at 10.30am on the 19th of November 2025, and will hear all parties present regarding the terms of final orders to be made including the issue of costs.

The costs hearing

32. The hearing proceeded on the 9th of December, 2025. There was no appearance by the defendant. The plaintiff’s senior counsel, Ms McNally, sought an order for the plaintiff's costs. In circumstances where I was satisfied that the defendant had been duly notified of the costs hearing date (and of previously adjourned dates) I acceded to the plaintiff's application for costs (to include any reserve and/or discovery costs), to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

Approved.

Dated: 10/12/25