O’Reilly McCabe -v- Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform Anor Supreme Court
Judgment was given by Mrs Justice Denham on July 7th, 2009, Mr Justice Kearns and Ms Justice Macken concurring.
Judgment
A lay litigant lost her appeal against a High Court order dismissing her claims that she suffered damages as a result of her husband being made a ward of court. An Isaac Wunder order, preventing her from bringing similar proceedings again, was also made.
Background
The appellant, Rose O’Reilly McCabe, had sought damages against the Minister for Justice and a firm of solicitors, Patrick Cusack, Smith Co, for damages arising out of her contention that her husband, from whom she was separated, had been a ward of court and therefore her marriage was void. She claimed negligence and the wrongful birth of her five children as a result of her not being informed that Thomas McCabe had been made a ward of court following a road accident in 1965. She claimed that he suffered organic brain damage as a result of the accident and became schizophrenic, and was taken into wardship. She claimed that the defendants were negligent in not disclosing his legal status, and that her marriage was a nullity.
As a result she was unable to enforce any of her marital rights.
She said that his claim for personal injuries arising out of the accident was settled in 1967, and that the solicitors were appointed guardians and assumed control of his person and estate, that he was abandoned by his legal guardians and that the funds paid into court for his benefit were misappropriated.
She went through a service of marriage to Mr McCabe in 1971, and between 1973 and 1980 she gave birth to five children.
In 1992 she separated from Mr McCabe and commenced matrimonial proceedings. She claimed she was unable to avail of her entitlement to maintenance because of his legal status. She obtained a decree nisi in 2004, and claimed she could not proceed further because there was a legal impediment on the marriage certificate.
In 1992 she commenced legal proceedings against the Minister, which was substantially the same as those taken in the High Court proceedings now under appeal, claiming that she had not been made aware of Mr McCabe’s legal status and has suffered damage as a result. The High Court found then that she had no cause of action and ordered that the proceedings be stayed.
When the appellant brought a fresh claim to the High Court in 2004, the Minister stated that the claim was statute barred, that the appellant had no reasonable cause of action, that the proceedings should be dismissed as vexatious, and that she should be restrained from making any further application on the matter. In addition the solicitors denied they were at any material time the agent of Mr McCabe, or that he was ever a ward of court.
The key issue was whether or not Mr McCabe had ever been made a ward of court, and the High Court reviewed the evidence, particularly that from the registrar of titles and two registrars of the Office of Wards of Court. In comprehensive affidavits, they stated that Mr McCabe was not made a ward of court in 1965 or at any time thereafter.
“There is no evidence whatever that the discovery is incomplete or that any documents have been suppressed,” the High Court said.
It also pointed out that this was the third time that the appellant had alleged that the Minister and solicitor were negligent in not disclosing the alleged legal status of Mr McCabe, having sought to do so in Northern Ireland as well as in this jurisdiction in 1992.
“ []the appelant] continues to make grave allegations against both defendants on the basis of her mistaken belief,” the High Court said. “This court finds that these allegations are unfounded.” It struck out the proceedings on the grounds that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the Minister or the solicitors.
Mrs O’Reilly McCabe appealed against these orders.
Decision
Mrs Justice Denham said that the court had jurisdiction to strike out or dismiss pleadings where no cause of action was disclosed, or where the claim was frivolous or vexatious. She was satisfied that the learned trial judge identified the correct principles in law and then applied them to the motions in this case. The kernel of the case was the claim Mr McCabe was a ward of court. Over the years the Minister had replied to this claim and referred to the registrar of wards of court who on a number of occasions had confirmed in writing that he was not, and never had been, a ward of court.
The appellant had brought previous unsuccessful proceedings making similar claims in 1992 and in Northern Ireland in 1995. “It is quite clear that there has been an abuse of the court process over many years,” Mrs Justice Denham said. “It is a matter of public record as to whether a person is or is not a ward of court.” She said that an aspect of the case was the type of misunderstanding that could arise with a lay litigant, propelling him or her into protracted litigation.
Imposing the Isaac Wunder order, she said the appellant could not commence proceedings against either of the defendants without the permission of the High Court. The full judgment is on www.courts.ie.
The applicant represented herself; Seamus Wolfe SC, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor, represented the Minister; James McGowan BL, instructed by J A Shaw Co, represented Cusack, Smith Co.