Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff commenced proceedings by Plenary Summons on 22nd May 2023, seeking damages and injunctive relief related to alleged misconduct by multiple entities, including private companies, media outlets, a university, and An Garda Síochána (AGS). None of the private entities or media outlets are parties to the proceedings, and the Defendant cannot be held liable for their actions. The Plaintiff alleges harassment, stalking, unwarranted surveillance, and other oppressive behaviors primarily by AGS over a period from 2006 to 2023.
The Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff's proceedings pursuant to Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC), asserting the claim is frivolous, vexatious, and discloses no cause of action. Alternatively, the Defendant invoked the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to dismiss, stay, or strike out the claim on similar grounds.
The Plaintiff also filed a motion for judgment in default of defence on 31st October 2023, which was to be considered after the Defendant's strike-out motion.
The Plaintiff’s allegations include complaints of harassment by AGS, medical negligence by a university psychiatrist, torts and coercion by the university, adverse media publicity, and employment termination, though most allegations relate to entities other than the Defendant.
The Plaintiff submitted multiple affidavits and exhibits, including detailed but largely uncorroborated allegations of harassment and surveillance by AGS, with limited identification of alleged perpetrators, often described as "plain clothes" officers. The Defendant challenged the evidential basis and particulars of these claims.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff’s pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendant.
- Whether the Plaintiff’s action is frivolous or vexatious, warranting strike out under Order 19, rule 28 of the RSC.
- Whether the Court’s inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to dismiss or strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process on the basis that the claim is bound to fail.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous and vexatious and discloses no reasonable cause of action, particularly as it relates to entities for which the Defendant bears no liability.
- The only entity potentially liable is AGS, but the Plaintiff fails to particularise the alleged harassment, stalking, and surveillance with sufficient detail, including dates, times, and identities of alleged perpetrators.
- The Plaintiff’s pleadings amount to "mere bald assertions" unsupported by evidence and are bound to fail.
- The Defendant relies on Order 19, rule 28 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to strike out the claim or stay proceedings as an abuse of process.
- The Defendant notes that no relief under Order 19, rule 27 (which allows striking out portions of proceedings) has been sought, though it might be appropriate.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff repeats allegations of harassment, stalking, surveillance, and breach of statutory duties under section 62 of the An Garda Síochána Act 2005.
- The Plaintiff asserts harm suffered from these alleged behaviours and references the Court’s discretion in considering the claim.
- The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant and/or AGS possess additional information related to the alleged incidents, which may be pursued through pre-hearing discovery applications.
- No evidence of steps taken to obtain such information outside of a data access request to the Garda Ombudsman Commission was presented.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Burke and Woolfson v. Beatty [2016] IEHC 353 |
Application under Order 19, rule 28 to strike out pleadings disclosing no cause of action; distinction between striking out under RSC and inherent jurisdiction. |
Used to confirm that pleadings must disclose a cause of action on their face; inherent jurisdiction may be used to strike out claims bound to fail even if facts as pleaded might give rise to a cause of action. |
| Keary v. PRAI [2022] IEHC 28 |
Interpretation of Order 19, rule 28; distinction between a bad case and a badly pleaded case. |
Applied to emphasize that pleadings must be assumed true for strike out purposes and that the court’s role is to assess legal sufficiency, not factual merits. |
| Lopes v. Minister for Justice [2014] 2 IR 301 |
Scope of inherent jurisdiction to dismiss claims; limits on substituting inherent jurisdiction for procedural rules. |
Guided the court’s approach to examining evidential basis beyond pleadings only in limited circumstances and cautioned against misuse of inherent jurisdiction. |
| Keohane v. Hynes & Anor [2014] IESC 66 |
Extent of factual analysis permissible on dismissal applications bound to fail; identification of mere assertions without credible evidential basis. |
Applied to assess whether Plaintiff’s factual allegations were mere assertions lacking credible basis and to determine if claim was bound to fail. |
| Towey v. Ireland [2022] IEHC 559 |
Principles governing jurisdiction to strike out or dismiss; high threshold; right of access to courts. |
Adopted to emphasize sparing exercise of jurisdiction, onus on moving party, and requirement that plaintiff’s case cannot succeed even with amendments or pre-trial procedures. |
| James v. Watters and Anr [2023] IECA 115 |
Contrast between disputed facts and inferences; evidential basis for dismissal. |
Distinguished as involving robust denial and documentary evidence; court noted current case focuses on evidential deficiencies rather than denial of agreed facts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first identified that the Plaintiff’s claims against entities other than the Defendant (including private companies, media outlets, and the university) disclose no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant, who bears no legal responsibility for those entities. Such claims were deemed frivolous and vexatious and subject to strike out.
Regarding claims against AGS, the Court acknowledged that although the Plaintiff’s pleadings suffer from evidential deficiencies, including lack of particularity as to dates, times, and identities of alleged perpetrators, the claim cannot be dismissed as disclosing no cause of action or as frivolous or vexatious at this stage.
The Court carefully distinguished between the limited scope of Order 19, rule 28, which confines the Court to the pleadings assuming facts pleaded are true, and the broader inherent jurisdiction, which allows limited factual analysis to prevent abuse of process. The Court applied established jurisprudence emphasizing that the inherent jurisdiction should be sparingly exercised and only where a claim is clearly bound to fail.
The Court noted that the Plaintiff has not produced independent corroborative evidence but stressed that the absence of evidence at this early stage is not determinative. There remains a credible basis for the Plaintiff to pursue discovery and other pre-trial procedures to substantiate the claim.
Consequently, the Court declined to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim against AGS under either Order 19, rule 28 or the inherent jurisdiction, but ordered the Plaintiff to amend the pleadings to exclude claims against entities for which the Defendant cannot be liable and to clarify the pleadings accordingly.
The Court granted an extension for the Defendant to deliver a Defence following the amended pleadings and reserved costs to the hearing of the action, allowing liberty to apply.
Holding and Implications
The Court GRANTED IN PART AND REFUSED IN PART the Defendant’s motion to strike out the Plaintiff’s proceedings.
The claims relating to the actions of private companies, media outlets, and the university were struck out as frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no cause of action against the Defendant. Injunctive relief sought against AGS’s Commissioner was also struck out as bound to fail due to the Commissioner not being a party.
The Court refused to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant in respect of alleged harassment, stalking, and other oppressive behaviour by AGS, finding that the claim discloses a cause of action and is not frivolous or vexatious.
The Plaintiff was directed to serve amended pleadings within 14 days, and the Defendant was granted 28 days thereafter to deliver a Defence.
The decision allows the Plaintiff to proceed with the claim against AGS and to use pre-trial procedures to address evidential deficiencies. No new precedent was established; the ruling applies established legal principles concerning strike out and inherent jurisdiction.