High Court Approves Settlement in Case of Child Allegedly Restrained in Classroom Chair

A High Court judge has approved a legal settlement in a case involving a four-and-a-half-year-old boy who was allegedly strapped to a chair by a teacher shortly after starting junior infants at a rural primary school in September 2018.

The case, described by Mr Justice Alexander Owens as “quite extraordinary,” was brought by the child’s mother, who sued the school on her son’s behalf for alleged assault and false imprisonment. The case was resolved with a settlement agreed upon by both parties, though without any admission of liability by the school, which robustly denied the allegations.

Due to a court order, the identities of the parties involved — including the school, the child, and his family — cannot be disclosed.

The court heard that the allegations stemmed from two days during which the child, who has documented speech and language difficulties as well as dyslexia, was allegedly strapped into a specially adapted chair in the classroom. The chair, equipped with belt restraints, was reportedly a leftover from its use by another pupil with physical disabilities.

Photographic evidence of the chair was shown in court, prompting the judge to question why such equipment remained in the classroom. Counsel for the family, Éanna Mulloy SC (instructed by Callan Tansey Solicitors), explained that the chair had not been removed after its previous use.

Gardaí initially launched an investigation into the incident. However, it was later discontinued after four adults — reportedly staff members — submitted statements asserting that the child had strapped himself into the chair. Mr Justice Owens remarked that a jury could potentially have found these statements lacking in credibility and might have considered awarding not only general and aggravated damages, but also exemplary damages had the case proceeded to trial.

“It is rather shocking that a child would be held in a chair on two days,” the judge noted, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations in light of the child’s additional needs.

According to the plaintiff’s statement of claim, the child exhibited anxiety about attending school and was reluctant to go in the early days of the term. He experienced disturbed sleep, which his mother initially attributed to the natural adjustment process. The school had been informed that the child had suffered an accident as a toddler, which contributed to his speech and developmental challenges.

There were also concerns raised over disciplinary practices, including an instance where the child was reportedly denied access to outdoor playtime for not finishing his lunch. His teacher and a resource teacher expressed concerns over his behaviour, stating he was hiding under tables and not settling into classroom routines. The family was advised to consider holding him back for another year in preschool.

A turning point came on September 17, when the child was reportedly found by his mother and grandmother holding a metal rod in the car before school. When asked why, he responded, “They’re very cross and I need it,” prompting further concern.

Later that day, another parent allegedly informed the family that the boy had been tied to a chair in the classroom and had expressed discomfort about it. The parents then met with the school principal and requested to see the classroom. Although initially met with hesitation, they located the room — which the father, a former pupil, recognized — and identified the chair in question. According to the claim, the teacher acknowledged strapping the boy into the chair for an hour on Friday, September 14, and for the full day on Monday, September 17.

Mr Justice Owens, while reluctant to approve the undisclosed settlement amount, acknowledged the risks of litigation and observed that a jury may have awarded a greater sum based on the facts as presented.

The outcome brings a legal resolution to a troubling episode that raises serious questions about the treatment of children with additional needs in educational settings. The school’s firm denial of wrongdoing and the discontinuation of the criminal investigation contrast with the gravity of the allegations and the emotional impact on the child and his family.