Costello & Anor v Commissioner of an Garda Siochana

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiffs commenced proceedings by plenary summons on 21st December 2005, claiming damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant for alleged harassment, watching and besetting, intimidation, repeated unlawful arrests, and criminal slander. An interlocutory injunction was granted by consent on 29th December 2005, restraining the Defendant and agents from entering the Plaintiffs' home without authority or request.

The Plaintiffs’ statement of claim, delivered on 13th January 2006, alleged a ten-year campaign of harassment with thirty-two incidents detailed, and fourteen further incidents in 2005. The Defendant sought particulars of these allegations, focusing on the initial thirty-two incidents. The Defendant’s defence, delivered on 22nd March 2006, raised preliminary points including vagueness of the claims and that certain claims were statute barred under the Statute of Limitations, 1957.

Two applications were heard on 12th June 2007: the Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery and the Defendant’s application to strike out parts of the statement of claim under Order 19, Rule 27 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, and on statute-bar grounds. The Defendant’s application targeted paragraph 6 of the statement of claim, which detailed alleged harassment incidents. The Plaintiffs did not file a direct affidavit responding to the Defendant’s affidavit but anticipated the motion in their solicitor’s affidavit. Following the hearing, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to provide further particulars by 20th July 2007 and adjourned the strike-out application to 31st July 2007. The Plaintiffs furnished further particulars by the deadline. This judgment addresses the Defendant’s strike-out application in light of those further particulars.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether parts of paragraph 6 of the Plaintiffs’ statement of claim should be struck out as statute barred under the Statute of Limitations, 1957.
2. Whether parts of paragraph 6 should be struck out under Order 19, Rule 27 of the Rules of the Superior Courts for being vague, unclear, or prejudicial to a fair trial.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The claims in paragraph 6 are vague, unclear, and imprecise, prejudicing the Defendant’s ability to conduct a fair defence.
• Certain claims pre-dating 22nd December 1999 are statute barred under the Statute of Limitations, 1957.
• Claims for slander pre-dating 22nd December 2002 are also statute barred.
• The Defendant is entitled to particulars of all allegations to properly distinguish which claims must be addressed and which are barred.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Defendant’s motion to strike out amounts to an abuse of process as the Defendant did not seek rejoinders to the notice for particulars to address vagueness.
• The Plaintiffs indicated they do not pursue claims in respect of certain non-particularised incidents but could not identify which portions of paragraph 6 these were.
• The Plaintiffs provided further particulars in response to the Court’s order to clarify some incidents.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that a plea of statute barred is a matter of defence, not appropriately disposed of by a strike-out application, but rather by trial of a preliminary issue or at trial. Accordingly, the Court refused the Defendant’s strike-out application on statute-bar grounds.

Regarding the strike-out application under Order 19, Rule 27, the Court recognized the rule’s purpose to remove unnecessary, scandalous, or prejudicial matters that might delay or prejudice a fair trial. The Court noted that several incidents in paragraph 6 lacked sufficient particulars, including no dates or locations, which would prejudice the Defendant’s ability to prepare a defence and thus impede a fair trial.

The Plaintiffs’ concession not to pursue claims on certain incidents was considered ineffective because they could not identify which incidents these were. The Court emphasized the Defendant’s right to sufficient particulars to distinguish claims that must be defended from those that may be barred. Consequently, the Court struck out those sub-paragraphs in paragraph 6 lacking adequate particularity but allowed the remainder to stand, leaving it to the Plaintiffs to consider consenting to further strike-out to avoid costs.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the Defendant’s application to strike out parts of paragraph 6 of the statement of claim on statute-bar grounds.

The Court ORDERED that sub-paragraphs of paragraph 6 lacking sufficient particulars (specifically those without identified dates or relevant details) be struck out pursuant to Order 19, Rule 27, as they would prejudice a fair trial.

The remaining allegations in paragraph 6 were deemed sufficiently particularised to proceed. The Plaintiffs were advised they might prudently consent to striking out some further parts to avoid procedural delays and costs.

No new legal precedent was established; the decision clarified the application of procedural rules regarding particulars and strike-out motions in the context of statute-barred claims and vague pleadings.