- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Taylor v KBC Bank Ireland PLC and Ors (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff commenced personal-injuries proceedings arising from an alleged assault by several men at premises in County Roscommon on 11 December 2018. The pleadings alleged that the Plaintiff was pushed down, dragged across concrete, restrained, punched and kicked. [1][2][3]
The proceedings were brought against several defendants, including Company A, a security and eviction-services company, and Defendant, said to be its employee. The pleadings alleged failures concerning the planning and conduct of an eviction, including inadequate safety precautions, the presence of violent persons, and failure to manage a dangerous situation. [4][5][6]
Company A and Defendant applied to dismiss the claims under Order 19, rule 28, or the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, alleging no reasonable cause of action, abuse of process, inevitable failure, and no reasonable prospect of success. They also relied on delay and the risk of an unfair trial. [7][8][6]
The Plaintiff had been convicted of assaulting Defendant arising from the same events. The motion was heard on the basis of pleadings, affidavits and the procedural chronology. [9][10][11][12]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the claims against Company A and Defendant disclosed a reasonable cause of action or should be dismissed as abusive, bound to fail, or having no reasonable prospect of success. [7][8]
- Whether the Plaintiff’s conviction for assaulting Defendant rendered the claim against Defendant an abuse of process or contrary to public policy. [13][14][15]
- Whether delay in bringing or progressing the proceedings justified dismissal, having regard to prejudice and the principles in Kirwan. [16][17][18][19]
- Whether the claims against Company A were sufficiently distinct from the claim against Defendant because they included broader allegations of systemic failures. [20][21]
Arguments of the Parties
Company A and Defendant
- The pleadings did not identify the alleged assailants or connect Defendant or Company A to the assault, and the pleaded facts were inconsistent with negligence. [22][23]
- The Plaintiff could not pursue civil compensation based on facts involving his own criminal wrongdoing; doing so was said to constitute illegality, abuse of process and an affront to public policy. [13][14]
- The conviction was unchallenged and the Plaintiff’s solicitor, rather than the Plaintiff, had sworn the replying affidavit. [24]
- The delay had caused or threatened serious prejudice, particularly because the case depended on disputed recollections of events occurring more than seven years earlier. [16][17]
Plaintiff
- The pleadings identified Company A as providing security and eviction services and Defendant as its employee present at the eviction. [25][26]
- The negligence allegations extended beyond the assault itself to the planning, management and control of the eviction, including failures to prevent violence and maintain safety. [27][28]
- The criminal conviction did not determine whether private security personnel acted lawfully, proportionately or negligently, and did not preclude claims concerning systemic failures. [29][30]
- The delay was explained by the PIAB process and the complexity of proceedings involving multiple defendants. The Plaintiff argued that the applicable delay threshold had not been reached and that specific prejudice had not been shown. [31][32]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Stupple v. Royal Insurance Co Ltd [1971] 1 Q.B. 50 | Illegality and civil claims based on criminal conduct. | Relied on by the moving defendants. [13] |
| Nevin v. Nevin [2019] IESC 6 | Issues concerning the effect and admissibility of criminal convictions. | Referenced in the context of the admitted conviction. [33][34] |
| Anderson v. Cooke [2005] 2 IR 607 | The defence of illegality. | Identified as relevant to the illegality argument. [33][34] |
| Lewis-Ranwell v GWS Health Services (UK) Ltd [2026] UKSC 2 | Illegality in the context of a civil claim. | Referenced as supporting the illegality defence. [33][34] |
| Kirwan v. Connors [2025] IESC 25; [2025] IESC 21 | Dismissal for delay, including the two-year inactivity milestone and relevant prejudice factors. | The Court applied its principles and concluded that the delay against Company A did not justify dismissal, while particular prejudice supported dismissal against Defendant. [16][18][19][35][36] |
| O'Domhnaill v Merrick [1984] IR 151 | Dismissal where delay causes prejudice sufficient to engage the relevant jurisdiction. | Considered in assessing whether delay and prejudice justified dismissal. [17][35] |
| Keohane v. Hayes [2014] IESC 66 | A claim should not be dismissed as abusive where evidence may exist to support its factual assertions; factual credibility should generally not be determined on a dismissal motion. | Used to explain the limits of assessing disputed facts on a strike-out application. [37][38] |
| Keohane v Hynes [2014] IESC 66 | The jurisdiction to dismiss a claim that is bound to fail derives from the court’s power to prevent abuse of process. | Cited through the explanatory passage concerning abuse of process and inevitable failure. [39][40] |
| Jodifern v. Fitzgerald [2000] 3 I.R. 321 | Disputed oral evidence cannot generally establish that proceedings are bound to fail on a strike-out motion. | Supported the Court’s caution against resolving factual disputes summarily. [41][42][43] |
| Aer Rianta cpt v. Ryanair Ltd [2004] IESC 23 | Restraint in exercising the strike-out jurisdiction. | Cited among authorities supporting appropriate restraint. [44][45] |
| Barry v Buckley [1981] IR 306 | Principles governing dismissal for abuse of process or lack of a reasonable cause of action. | Cited as an authority supporting restraint. [44][45] |
| Moylist Construction Ltd. v. Doheny [2016] IESC 9 | Limits of the strike-out jurisdiction. | Cited among the relevant authorities. [44][45] |
| Shelly-Morris v Bus Atha Cliath [2003] 1 IR 232 | The court’s power and duty to prevent abuse of its processes. | Used to explain why proceedings may be stayed or struck out where legal process is misused. [46][47] |
| Goldsmith v Sperrings [1977] 1 WLR 478 | Abuse of legal process and improper use of litigation. | The principle was approved and cited in Shelly-Morris. [46][48][49] |
| Riordan v Ireland (No. 5) [2001] 4 IR 463 | Categories of abuse of process, including relitigation and claims that cannot succeed. | Used to frame the abuse-of-process analysis. [50][51] |
| Morrissey v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation [2015] IEHC 200 | Abuse of process may extend beyond the strict limits of res judicata. | Supported the conclusion that the broader abuse-of-process doctrine could be considered even though res judicata did not apply. [52][53] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court explained that the revised Order 19, rule 28 permits dismissal where a claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is abusive, is bound to fail or has no reasonable prospect of success. Nevertheless, the jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint, and the Court should not decide disputed factual issues or conduct a trial on affidavit. [54][44][55][43][56]
A pleading defect may ordinarily be cured by amendment, but dismissal remains available where the proposed case is bound to fail or has no reasonable prospect of success. [57][58]
The Court found that the pleadings did not clearly state that the alleged assault occurred during an eviction managed by security operatives, did not identify the assailants, and did not connect Defendant or Company A to the alleged attackers. The negligence particulars were broader and could be read as alleging systemic failures surrounding the event. [59][60]
The Plaintiff’s conviction did not establish that Company A’s broader alleged duties had been complied with. The evidence before the Court concerned Defendant’s conviction and did not establish the connection between the other alleged assailants and Company A. [60][21]
As to Defendant, the Plaintiff sought damages for injuries arising from an incident in which he had been convicted of assaulting Defendant, without challenging the conviction. The Court concluded that pursuing that claim in the circumstances was an abuse of process, was bound to fail and had no reasonable chance of success. [61]
On delay, the Court found that no period of inactivity reached the two-year critical milestone identified in Kirwan. The relevant delays were 16 months, 10 months and 15 months, with the last period not attributable to the Plaintiff. The Court found no particular prejudice against Company A beyond the ordinary effects of delay. [35]
Defendant, however, had given evidence of serious physical and psychological injuries, security concerns, social and business consequences, and other significant effects. The Court considered this particular prejudice sufficient to justify dismissal against Defendant on delay grounds as well. [62][63][36]
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED AS AGAINST DEFENDANT: The proceedings were struck out against Defendant for abuse of process, because the claim was bound to fail and had no reasonable chance of succeeding. Dismissal was also justified by the particular prejudice established by Defendant. [61][36][64]
NOT DISMISSED AS AGAINST COMPANY A: The motion was refused against Company A because the claim included broader allegations concerning systemic failures in planning and executing the eviction, and the delay did not satisfy the applicable standard. [21][65][64]
Defendant was indicatively awarded the costs of the motion and proceedings. Costs as between the Plaintiff and Company A were reserved, partly because of inadequate expedition and lack of clarity in the pleadings. Any amendment application was directed to be brought within 21 days. [66][67]
The decision’s direct effect was to terminate the claim against Defendant while permitting the claim against Company A to continue. The opinion applied existing principles and did not state that it created a new precedent. [64][67]
Alert