The Court of Appeal has dismissed a woman’s appeal against orders ending her claims against her siblings over their late father’s estate and former family home. The court found no error in the High Court’s conclusion that the claims were statute barred and that she had not shown fraud that would postpone the time limit.
The dispute followed the death intestate of Patrick Joseph Cunniffe in 1987. His daughter Catriona Cunniffe claimed she had not received her full share of the estate and that her siblings had broken an agreement that she could live in the family home. She also claimed personal injury arising from the alleged conduct. The claims were denied.
The action began in May 2016. The High Court first found the claims prima facie out of time: the estate claim arose no later than the last distribution in 2004, while the family-home and personal-injury claims were based on events in 2003 or 2004. Because Cunniffe relied on the statutory provision for fraud or fraudulent concealment, the High Court held a further hearing on whether that provision postponed the limitation period.
At that hearing, Cunniffe said she had first seen an undated family settlement document in April 2019 and questioned its validity. She acknowledged that the signature on it was hers but said she had no recollection of signing it. Her sister testified that it had been signed around Easter 1995. The High Court accepted that evidence and found the fraud allegation unsubstantiated.
On appeal, Cunniffe challenged the handling of the settlement document, the refusal to hear discovery applications before the dismissal motions, and the assessment of when her use of the family home ended. The Court of Appeal said the High Court had assessed the claims as pleaded; it had not found as a fact that she moved out in 2004. The pleaded case was that the house became uninhabitable in 2003 or 2004.
The appeal court also held that discovery was not required to investigate the estate administration generally before deciding whether the pleaded claims were out of time. It said the settlement document did not determine that question. The court dismissed the appeal. Its view that the respondents should receive their costs was provisional: Cunniffe could seek a further hearing on costs within 21 days of electronic delivery of the judgment.