A 10-year-old schoolgirl who alleged she was bullied by fellow pupils in her first year attending Scoil Nano Nagle, Clondalkin, Dublin, has lost her High Court action for damages. The issue of who will pay the substantial costs will be decided at a later date.
Mr Justice Johnson yesterday dismissed the claim brought by Nicola Mulvey, suing through her mother, Mrs Margaret Mulvey, Clondalkin, against the school. He found the school witnesses more reliable than Mrs Mulvey and Nicola.
The judge adjourned the case for a week to allow both sides to consider the judgment.
In her proceedings, Nicola claimed damages for personal injuries suffered on June 25th, 1998, when it was alleged she had to be hospitalised after being assaulted and kicked by a number of fellow pupils in the school yard. It was claimed the school managers were negligent in that they failed to monitor the conduct of the pupils involved. Nicola also claimed she had been bullied since the previous October and that the school failed to act on foot of complaints by her mother.
The school denied the claims, said it was very aware of bullying and had put measures in place to counter it.
In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Johnson said he accepted the definition of bullying as "repeated aggression, verbal, psychological or physical, conducted by an individual or group against others". He agreed that isolated incidents of aggressive behaviour which should not be condoned could scarcely be described as bullying, but if the behaviour was systematic and ongoing it was bullying.
In this case, the claim of bullying was made regarding a single incident on June 25th, 1998, when Nicola was alleged to have been assaulted by fellow pupils.
Having considered all the evidence, he was satisfied the incident did not occur as described by Mrs Mulvey and that the alleged injuries were not sustained. Any incident which may have taken place did not result in the alleged personal injuries and was certainly not the result of any negligence or breach of duty by the school.
The law required that the school show the same degree of care to Nicola as that of a prudent parent exercising reasonable care, he added. He was satisfied this care was taken.
The judge noted that, in her evidence, Sister Gemma, Nicola's class teacher, had said she was deeply aware of bullying and the school had provided documents for parents and attended seminars on the matter.
Sister Gemma had said the first incident brought to her attention regarding Nicola related to an occasion when Nicola's trousers were pulled down by another child. Sister Gemma said she had dealt with that and no other complaint was made by Mrs Mulvey in the first term. She added that there were no reports from teachers patrolling the yard about untoward incidents taking place. She had particularly kept an eye on Nicola.
Sister Gemma also denied that Mrs Mulvey had sought and secured permission to address Nicola's class. She had said Mrs Mulvey came into the class and berated the children.
On June 25th, 1998, Sister Gemma said another child had hit Nicola in the classroom, that Sister Gemma tried to deal with that matter and that Nicola was in tears when her mother arrived.
Mrs Mulvey, in her evidence, had said Nicola was kicked and beaten up in the school yard. She used to watch the yard from a concealed position opposite it and saw bullying take place.
The judge said he found Sister Gemma a truthful, conscientious and extremely concerned person and a good and honest witness. The judge said there were a number of incidents in the case where there was a direct contradiction between the evidence from the plaintiff and the defendant. He had seen the witnesses in the case and also visited the school yard which was open, not very large and where incidents taking place could be easily observed.
He was satisfied the evidence given by the defendants was extremely convincing and they were responsible, caring, alert, concerned and truthful people. They had accepted some incidents took place but where there was a dispute on the facts of those, he was satisfied the defendants' version of the evidence was far more reliable and acceptable.
