A WOMAN who alleged negligence by the State and solicitors had led to a void marriage and the wrongful birth of her five children by a man with schizophrenia has been restrained by the Supreme Court from bringing further legal actions making such claims unless she has High Court permission to do so.
The Supreme Court said all the women’s claims were rooted in her “misconception” her husband was made a ward of court in the 1960s arising from a car accident and that she was never told of that prior to their marriage some years later. All the evidence showed the man, who was aged 20 at the time of the accident, was never made a ward of court, Mrs Justice Susan Denham noted.
In previous litigation over many years, it had been shown to the woman this was so as being made a ward of court was a matter of public record. The woman had been told many times her husband was never a ward of court and it was “a tragedy for all concerned” she had spent many years pursuing her misconception through the courts, the judge added. The proceedings showed no reasonable cause of action, and were vexatious and an abuse of process.
In light of those and other findings, the three judge Supreme Court upheld a High Court decision granting applications by the State and a firm of solicitors to dismiss claims against them by the woman, including of negligence related to her claim her husband was made a ward of court in 1965.
The Supreme Court also made an order preventing the woman bringing any further proceedings against the State and the solicitors without prior leave of the High Court.
The case arose from proceedings by the woman alleging negligence and the wrongful birth of five children. She had claimed the State and solicitors owed her a duty of care to disclose the legal status of her husband. She claimed he had suffered brain damage after an accident in 1965 after which, she alleged, he was taken into wardship as a minor. She alleged he later developed schizophrenia as a result of the accident.
The woman claimed she married the man some years later and they had five children, two of whom developed schizophrenia. She claimed her marriage was a nullity and she had suffered loss and damage because she was unable to enforce her marital rights as there was, she alleged, an undisclosed legal impediment.
She claimed the risk of inheriting schizophrenia was foreseeable and the injury to her children was due to alleged negligence. The judge noted the woman had taken other proceedings arising from such claims, all of which were dismissed.
