The Supreme Court dismissed Carmel Rose O'Reilly McCabe’s appeal and affirmed the High Court orders striking out her proceedings against the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Patrick Cusack Smith & Co. It also affirmed the refusal of her applications to strike out the defendants’ defences for alleged discovery failures. The Court ordered that she may not bring further proceedings against either defendant without leave of the High Court.
The proceedings, begun in 2004, alleged that the defendants had failed to disclose that Thomas McCabe was a ward of court after a 1965 road traffic accident. The appellant claimed that this undisclosed status made her 1972 marriage legally invalid and caused loss to her and her five children. She also alleged negligence concerning the children’s health and raised claims about transfers involving the family home. These were the appellant’s claims, not findings that the defendants had acted negligently or that the marriage was invalid.
The defendants denied key allegations, including that Thomas McCabe had ever been a ward of court. They also argued that the claims were barred, disclosed no cause of action and involved delay or abuse of process. The High Court found, on affidavit evidence, that he had never been made a ward. It dismissed the claims, restrained further proceedings without leave and rejected the appellant’s discovery applications.
On appeal, the Supreme Court said the wardship question was central. It relied on evidence from the Registrar of the Office of Wards of Court, who had examined records dating back to 1924 and confirmed that Thomas McCabe was not and never had been a ward. The Court held that the appellant’s assertion did not create a factual conflict in light of that evidence. It also explained that the phrase “Rule of Court” in an order approving a personal injury settlement did not mean that Thomas McCabe had been made a ward.
The Supreme Court concluded that the proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were vexatious and amounted to an abuse of process. It affirmed the High Court’s orders concerning the solicitors and the family-home claims, as well as its finding that appropriate discovery had been made. The Court’s decision was to dismiss the appeal and affirm those orders; it did not conduct a trial of the underlying negligence allegations.