The High Court has ordered the State to disclose three categories of records in a case brought by Lorraine Lench over her alleged illegal adoption, while refusing a request for broader historical and policy material.
Mr Justice Allen made the discovery order by consent on 8 February 2022. It covers State records concerning Ms Lench’s birth, her alleged adoption by Richard Patrick Wallace and Christina Mary Wallace, and communications between the State and Tusla about matters in the proceedings. The judge said he would hear submissions on the time allowed for disclosure.
The action, begun in July 2020, seeks damages against St Patrick’s Guild, members of the Religious Sisters of Charity and other defendants for alleged wrongs including conspiracy, deceit and intentional infringement of constitutional rights. Ms Lench also seeks a declaration and damages against the State and the Attorney General, alleging that they failed to vindicate her rights. Those are claims in the proceedings, not findings made in this discovery ruling.
The judgment recounts that Ms Lench’s birth certificate records her birth at St Monica’s Nursing Home in Dublin on 20 November 1951 to Richard and Christina Wallace. She says she was told by a Tusla staff member in 2019 that she had been illegally adopted, and received records stating she was born two days earlier to a woman recorded only as Margaret. Her case is that her birth was falsely registered and she was wrongfully removed from her mother’s community. The court did not decide those allegations.
A third defendant sought five categories of State records. The State agreed to disclose the first three shortly before the hearing, but opposed the other two, which sought historical material about adoption practices and State knowledge, as well as other potentially relevant documents. Justice Allen refused those categories because the defendant had not established their relevance and necessity at this stage. He said they appeared directed towards assessing possible claims for contribution or indemnity between defendants, issues that had not yet arisen.
The judge also said the third defendant should first deliver a defence setting out her position on the allegations. He noted that the discovery application had delayed the plaintiff’s case and that the plaintiff was entitled to have it heard with expedition. The order concerned disclosure only: it did not determine liability, the alleged adoption, or the claims against any defendant. The matter was listed for final orders and costs on 15 February 2022.