If your child has been injured, physically or psychologically by another, the person to sue would appear to the perpetrator. But, as Dr Ciaran Craven, barrister-at-law, appositely points out, children are not a "mark" for damages and parents are not liable for the torts of minor children.

So, aggrieved and injured children and their parents inevitably look to the party who does have money, ie insurance, and who would be worth pursuing, says Craven. "In the case of playground injuries and bullying, this is, of course, the school and its board of management," he continues, "But this begs the question why should the board of management of a school be liable in negligence for the intentional acts of others? Liability is imposed because certain relationships impose an obligation on one party to protect others from injury resulting from the intentional conduct of the other party."

There are relatively few cases, so far, on the specific point of bullying or other intentional conduct by pupils causing injury in primary schools. But, Craven says, the "robust approach" of the courts to attempts to interfere with the disciplinary mechanisms in schools, which is also applicable, to a school's response to bullying is illustrated by a number of cases including the Supreme court's "near peremptory treatment" of the appeal by the parents of an 11-year-old boy in Murtagh & Another v Board of Governors of St Emer's National School.

The applicant's son refused to apologise to a teacher whom he had insulted by writing an impertinent note. The principal notified the school board and the boy's parents and the board agreed that the boy could be suspended for three days.

In its dismissal of the case the Supreme Court noted that "the enforcement of discipline in a national school is a matter for the teachers, the principal teacher, the chairperson of the board of management and the board itself. It is not a matter for the courts, whose function, at most, is to ensure that the disciplinary complaint was dealt with fairly."