- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
A.R. v Ireland & Anor (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by the defendants for an order to strike out the plaintiff's proceedings pursuant to Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The defendants argue that the proceedings disclose no reasonable cause of action, amount to an abuse of process, are bound to fail, frivolous, or vexatious.
The plaintiff has been involved in multiple family law and criminal proceedings over a period exceeding three years, including interim barring orders, protection orders, breaches of such orders, and custody disputes. The fourth defendant, a member of An Garda Síochána, is involved in the investigation and prosecution of the plaintiff for fourteen charges directed to be tried on indictment, including assault causing harm and child neglect/cruelty.
The plaintiff has also sought interlocutory relief restraining the fourth defendant from "besetting and/or harassing" him pending trial, effectively seeking to prevent the investigation and prosecution.
The defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's interlocutory application were heard in camera with anonymisation of parties and details to protect identities.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's proceedings disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendants.
- Whether the proceedings amount to an abuse of the court's process.
- Whether the plaintiff's interlocutory application for relief restraining the fourth defendant should be granted.
- The applicability and scope of Order 19, rule 28 and the court's inherent jurisdiction in striking out proceedings.
- The legal viability of claims including defamation, negligent misstatement, malicious prosecution, and misfeasance in public office against the defendants, particularly the fourth defendant.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' Arguments
- The proceedings disclose no reasonable cause of action and/or are an abuse of process and/or bound to fail.
- The claim of defamation is barred by absolute privilege as statements were made in court and to court-appointed professionals.
- No duty of care or proximity exists to support negligent misstatement claims.
- The tort of malicious prosecution cannot be made out as the plaintiff pleaded guilty to some charges and others have been struck out or remain pending.
- Claims of harassment and unlawful bail checks lack legal basis and may amount to misfeasance in public office only if malicious intent is shown, which is not pleaded.
- The plaintiff’s interlocutory relief is likely intended to frustrate or impede legitimate criminal prosecution and is an abuse of process.
- The plaintiff’s application to correct the case title is frivolous and vexatious.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The fourth defendant acted with overzealousness and prejudice, ignoring key evidence and supporting ex-partners' agendas.
- The fourth defendant made defamatory statements to a court-appointed psychologist and witnesses.
- The plaintiff alleges negligent misstatement by the fourth defendant during family law proceedings.
- The plaintiff complains about unlawful bail checks and arrests, including a warrant allegedly unsigned and unsealed.
- The plaintiff claims harassment by the fourth defendant and seeks damages for stress and anxiety caused.
- The plaintiff objects to the use of block capitals in the case title, asserting it misrepresents his legal status.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Barry v. Buckley [1981] I.R. 306 | Distinction between Order 19, rule 28 applications and inherent jurisdiction to dismiss claims bound to fail. | Used to explain the scope of court’s jurisdiction in striking out proceedings and consideration of affidavit evidence. |
| O.N. v. McD [2013] IEHC 135 | Approach to anonymisation and in camera proceedings in family law cases. | Followed to justify anonymisation and redaction of identifying details in this judgment. |
| R.C. v. K.E. [2022] 1 I.R. 266 | Absolute privilege for statements made to social workers under court direction and in court proceedings. | Applied to bar defamation claims arising from statements made by the fourth defendant in family law investigations and proceedings. |
| Evans v. London Hospital [1981] 1 W.L.R. 184 | Rationale for absolute privilege attached to out-of-court statements made in preparation of evidence. | Supported the finding that statements to the psychologist and witnesses are absolutely privileged. |
| Hedley Byrne and Company Limited v. Heller and Partners Limited [1964] AC 465 | Principles governing liability for negligent misstatement requiring relationship of proximity and reliance. | Held that no such proximity or reliance existed between the plaintiff and fourth defendant to sustain this claim. |
| Hanrahan v. Garda Commissioner [2020] IEHC 180 | Elements of malicious prosecution tort. | Applied to demonstrate that plaintiff’s claims do not satisfy the elements of malicious prosecution. |
| Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 A.C. 1 | Two forms of misfeasance in public office: targeted malice and unlawful exercise of power. | Considered in assessing the claim of misfeasance; court noted uncertainty in Irish law but found no basis for second form here. |
| McAuliffe v. O'Dwyer [2011] IEHC 270 | Evidence and standards for malice in misfeasance of public office claims involving Gardaí. | Distinguished from current case; no prima facie unlawful or malicious conduct shown here. |
| Sherry v. Primark [2010] 1 I.R. 407 | Requirement for Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) authorisation before issuing personal injury claims. | Applied to bar the plaintiff’s claim for damages for stress and mental trauma due to lack of PIAB authorisation. |
| Cunningham v. North Eastern Health Board [2012] IEHC 190 | Jurisdictional requirement of PIAB authorisation for personal injuries claims. | Applied alongside Sherry v. Primark to bar damages claim. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by outlining the procedural basis for striking out proceedings, distinguishing between Order 19, rule 28 and the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss claims bound to fail. It acknowledged recent amendments allowing consideration of affidavit evidence but emphasised that only admitted or indisputable facts may be considered to protect constitutional litigation rights.
The court anonymised the proceedings due to sensitive family law and criminal matters.
Reviewing the factual background, the court noted multiple family law orders against the plaintiff, breaches admitted by the plaintiff, and ongoing criminal prosecutions involving the fourth defendant as investigating officer.
The statement of claim was analysed in detail. Defamation claims were rejected on the basis of absolute privilege for statements made in court and to court-appointed professionals. Claims of negligent misstatement failed due to absence of proximity, reliance, or detriment.
Malicious prosecution claims were dismissed because the complainants initiated proceedings, some prosecutions succeeded or were struck out, and ongoing criminal proceedings cannot support such a claim until concluded.
Allegations of unlawful bail checks and harassment lacked sufficient pleading of malice or unlawful exercise of power. The court considered the tort of misfeasance in public office but noted the uncertainty of its parameters in Irish law. It found no prima facie unlawful conduct by the fourth defendant and no pleaded malice.
The plaintiff’s affidavit revealed that alleged malice was directed at a complainant, not the defendants, undermining the claim.
The plaintiff’s claim for damages related to stress and anxiety was barred due to failure to obtain required PIAB authorisation.
The alleged defect in the arrest warrant was deemed a collateral attack on judicial processes without a viable cause of action.
The court expressed strong suspicion that the proceedings aimed to frustrate legitimate criminal prosecution, constituting an abuse of process justifying dismissal.
The plaintiff’s interlocutory application for relief was refused as he failed to show even a fair question to be tried, the lowest threshold for interlocutory relief, and as such relief would interfere with the criminal process contrary to public policy.
Finally, the plaintiff’s application to amend the case title was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, with the court ordering an amendment to comply with the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Holding and Implications
The court GRANTED the defendants’ application to strike out the plaintiff’s proceedings on the grounds that they disclose no reasonable cause of action, are an abuse of process, and are bound to fail.
The plaintiff’s interlocutory application for relief restraining the fourth defendant was REFUSED.
The plaintiff’s application to amend the case title was also REFUSED, but the court ordered correction of the title to comply with procedural rules.
The direct effect is the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants, allowing the ongoing criminal prosecution to proceed unimpeded. No new legal precedent was established; rather, established principles relating to striking out claims, absolute privilege, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process were applied to the facts.
Alert