High Court tosses student’s college fall lawsuit over delays

The High Court has formally dismissed a long-running personal injury action brought by a former student against a secondary school in County Kildare. The case, which stemmed from an incident dating back to May 2010, was thrown out due to significant and unjustified procedural delays. The plaintiff had sought damages from Leinster Senior College in Newbridge, alleging that a fall on a staircase caused her severe physical and psychological harm.

Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on Thursday, bringing an end to legal proceedings that had been initiated more than a decade ago. The court found that the cumulative delay on the part of the plaintiff exceeded five years, a timeframe the judge deemed unacceptable, particularly given previous judicial warnings to progress the matter.

The 2010 Incident and Alleged Injuries

The legal action arose from an event on 12 May 2010, when the plaintiff was a student at the fee-paying co-educational school. She alleged that while descending a stairwell, she was intentionally pushed by a fellow student, causing her to fall to the bottom of the flight. The student accused of the push was later joined as a third party to the proceedings.

In her claim, the former student detailed significant injuries resulting from the fall. Medical reports cited a serious injury to her right ankle, specifically a fracture of the fifth metatarsal. The plaintiff stated that the severity of the damage required reconstructive surgery and that she continued to suffer from pain and functional limitations years after the event.

Beyond the physical trauma, the plaintiff also claimed to have suffered psychological distress. Her legal team argued that the incident had precipitated a fear of heights and periods of low mood, which she attributed directly to the fall and the alleged lack of safety within the school environment.

Allegations of Negligence and the School’s Defence

The core of the plaintiff’s case rested on the assertion that Leinster Senior College, as the occupier and operator of the educational facility, had failed in its duty of care. She argued that the school had not maintained a safe system of supervision and discipline, thereby failing to control horseplay among students.

Furthermore, the lawsuit targeted the physical infrastructure of the building. The plaintiff alleged that the stairs were defective or dangerous due to non-compliance with Building Regulations. Specific complaints were raised regarding the dimensions of the steps—the going and rise—as well as claims of inadequate warning signage and insufficient housekeeping practices.

Leinster Senior College mounted a robust defence against these claims. The school denied any negligence, maintaining that it operated a proper code of discipline and that housekeeping standards were sufficient. In its defence, the school characterised the incident as being caused solely, or substantially contributed to, by the unforeseeable conduct of the other student involved.

Additionally, the defence pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. They argued she had failed to use the handrails provided, did not keep a proper lookout, and failed to take reasonable care for her own safety. The school also suggested that the plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms were partly attributable to a pre-existing foot condition and that intervening events had impacted the severity of her injuries.

Judicial Patience Exhausted

The dismissal of the case ultimately turned on procedural history rather than the facts of the fall. Although the proceedings were initiated in 2012, progress was remarkably slow. In March 2022, the school applied to the court to have the case struck out due to the delay in prosecution.

In June 2023, a High Court judge initially declined to strike out the case but issued a stern directive. The court made it explicitly clear that steps must be taken "without any further delay" to secure a hearing date. However, when the school returned to court in 2025 seeking a strike-out for a second time, it was revealed that the 2023 direction had not been complied with.

Mr Justice Simons noted there was no justification for the failure to adhere to the court’s previous order. He highlighted that the cumulative delay attributable to the plaintiff was in excess of five years. Concluding his judgment, he stated, "There is no pressing exigency of justice that requires that the case be permitted to go to trial," effectively ending the 15-year saga.