The High Court has refused an application by Noelle O’Connor to re-enter judicial review proceedings over her placement in care, finding that the passage of time had left the respondents unable to defend the claim fairly.
The proceedings began in 2000. O’Connor claimed that public bodies had failed to provide an appropriate placement in a high support unit, taking account of her special needs. She sought several forms of relief, but by the time of this application the principal outstanding claim was for damages.
The case was adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter in July 2002. It was later struck out by an order made in May 2006 during a hearing on the Guardian ad litem’s application for costs. The judgment says the costs application was not served on O’Connor or her legal advisers, and the order incorrectly recorded that she was present. An amendment to the order was made in 2008, but it continued to record incorrectly that her counsel had been present.
O’Connor’s solicitor applied in February 2017 to re-enter the proceedings. He said her psychological and psychiatric difficulties had prevented her from managing her affairs and progressing the claim. He also said he became aware of the 2006 strike-out order after obtaining the court file in 2016, but later acknowledged receiving a copy of the order in December 2013.
The respondents opposed the application, citing delay and prejudice. They said material witnesses had died, retired or could not be traced; memories had faded; records were missing; and they had lost the opportunity to obtain medical evidence closer to the events. The Child and Family Agency also relied on a 2014 medical report stating that O’Connor had capacity to instruct and maintain proceedings from her 16th birthday to the date of the report.
Justice Reynolds found that the delay of more than 15 years was inordinate and that no reasonable or plausible explanation had been provided. The court acknowledged O’Connor’s health difficulties but also noted the report’s opinion on her capacity and that she had legal advice throughout.
Applying the principles in *Primor* and *O’Domhnaill v. Merrick*, the judge concluded that the respondents faced serious prejudice and that a fair trial was not possible. The court refused the application to re-enter the proceedings. It did not determine the underlying damages claim.