The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by three people whose claims against the first respondent were struck out after earlier settlements of proceedings in Northern Ireland. The court held that the settlements covered claims arising from the abuse by the late Fr Brendan Smyth, including claims based on later revelations about meetings in 1975.
The appeals concerned proceedings brought by Mario Cafolla, Ciara Fusco and Marie Cafolla against Leo O’Reilly and Sean Brady. The second respondent was not involved in the preliminary issue or these appeals. In a judgment delivered on 12 November 2015, Mr Justice Peart, with whom the judgment names Irvine and Hogan JJ, concluded that the High Court President was correct to strike out the proceedings against the first respondent.
The earlier Northern Ireland proceedings, begun in 1996, concerned sexual abuse by Smyth when the appellants were young children. Each appellant later signed settlement terms, in 1998 or 1999, accepting payment and agreeing to a full and final settlement of claims arising from their complaints. The terms extended to claims against the named defendants and “any third party”. The appellants had legal advice and representation when they settled.
The appellants argued that their current claims concerned a separate cause of action and new damage. They said they learned in January 2012, through a journalist, that Bishop Francis McKiernan had convened two meetings in 1975 after complaints that children had been abused by Smyth. They alleged that a duty to prevent further abuse arose from those events and said the later revelations caused renewed or additional psychological harm. They also claimed aggravated damages, alleging deliberate concealment.
The court treated the reported later harm as an exacerbation of injuries arising from the original abuse, rather than different damage outside the settlements. It said the settlement wording was comprehensive and showed an intention to bring claims arising from the complaints to a final end, including claims against other wrongdoers. The court also said the settlements could not be reopened because later information might have led the appellants to seek different sums.
The appellants objected that newspaper articles about the 1975 meetings had been handed to the High Court during the preliminary issue without notice. The Court of Appeal considered that informal handling less than ideal, but found the articles were not decisive: the High Court could have reached the same conclusion from the settlement terms. It also held that the disputed surrounding facts advanced by the appellants did not alter the central question of how those written terms should be construed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, leaving in place the order striking out the claims against the first respondent. It did not decide the underlying allegations of negligence or make findings on the alleged concealment; the appeal concerned whether the signed settlements barred the later claims.