E.A.O. -v- Daughters of Charity of St Vincent De Paul & ors [2015] IEHC 68 (13 February 2015)

E.A.O. -v- Daughters of Charity of St Vincent De Paul & ors [2015] IEHC 68 (13 February 2015)

The plaintiff's claim is statute barred as it was commenced forty-four years after the events and there was no fraudulent concealment by the first defendant to postpone the limitation period under section 71 of the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff was aware of the relevant facts from the outset, and with reasonable diligence could have discovered any further details earlier. Even if not statute barred, the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and the balance of justice would require dismissal due to prejudice to the defendant.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 68
Parties
Plaintiff: E. A. O.; First Defendant: The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent De Paul; Second Defendant: The Sisters of Charity Refuge; Third Defendant: The Health Service Executive
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution/statute of Limitations
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Delay in Prosecution, Consent to Adoption, Fraudulent Concealment
Civil Procedure Tort Law Adoption Law Statute of Limitations Delay in Prosecution Consent to Adoption Fraudulent Concealment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. A. O.

Plaintiff

The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent De Paul

First Defendant

The Sisters of Charity Refuge

Second Defendant

The Health Service Executive

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution/statute of Limitations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is statute barred under the Statute of Limitations 1957 (as amended)
  2. 2 Whether section 71 of the Statute of Limitations (fraudulent concealment) postpones the limitation period
  3. 3 Whether the delay in commencing proceedings is inordinate and inexcusable and warrants dismissal for want of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim is statute barred as it was commenced forty-four years after the events and there was no fraudulent concealment by the first defendant to postpone the limitation period under section 71 of the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff was aware of the relevant facts from the outset, and with reasonable diligence could have discovered any further details earlier. Even if not statute barred, the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and the balance of justice would require dismissal due to prejudice to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed for being statute barred
  • Claim would also be dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay and on the balance of justice