The Court of Appeal has dismissed Elizabeth Anne O’Dwyer’s appeal against the striking out of her claim against the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, finding that the claim was statute-barred. The court said the separate claims against the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge and the Health Service Executive remained in being.
O’Dwyer’s proceedings, issued in 2013, concern the adoption of her son in 1969. She claimed she had opposed the adoption and was pressured into signing consent papers. She also alleged that she was separated from her son at St. Patrick’s, a home on the Navan Road managed by the Daughters of Charity. These are allegations described in the judgment, not findings that the events occurred as alleged.
The High Court had found that an “informal process” for obtaining interim adoption consent operated in the case and that the Daughters of Charity had actively participated in it. It nevertheless held that O’Dwyer knew the facts she now complained of, so the statutory exception for concealed fraud did not apply. The High Court also said it would have struck out the case for delay, but the Court of Appeal said it was unnecessary to decide that issue.
On appeal, the court exceptionally considered a letter dated 26 September 1969, found among papers in a solicitor’s writing room. The letter said the child had been discharged to a couple “with a view to adoption” and asked that the mother complete a consent form. The court accepted the letter as credible and unavailable at trial despite reasonable diligence, but said it added nothing material to the pleaded case: the High Court had already assumed the Daughters of Charity’s active involvement for the purpose of deciding the limitation issue.
The appeal court explained that concealed fraud under section 71 of the Statute of Limitations 1957 can include concealment of wrongful conduct or of facts known only to a defendant that would establish a cause of action. It held that the evidence did not show the Daughters of Charity had concealed such conduct or facts. O’Dwyer knew she had been asked to give interim consent and that her son was given up for adoption before six months old. A failure to tell her that the process might have been unlawful did not, by itself, amount to concealed fraud under the section.
The court upheld the dismissal of the claim against the Daughters of Charity and dismissed the appeal. It did not determine the merits of the underlying allegations or the claims against the other two defendants.