High Court: Man who brought frivolous proceedings for over 15 years is precluded from instituting any further cases

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

In addition to a number of orders, Mr Justice Robert Eagar granted the State an Isaac Wunder Order – restraining the man from bringing any further proceedings against various defendants – to include any public body.

Orders sought by the State

The plaintiff in the present proceedings, Mr William Mulrooney contended that An Garda Síochána failed to investigate certain criminal complaints properly – in particular, that a lease entered into by his late father was unlawfully altered; and that despite complaining to An Garda Síochána this was not investigated properly.

In the High Court, the defendants – Chief Superintendent Catherine Kehoe, Garda Commissioner, Ireland, and Attorney General – sought:

Past Litigation

In breach of contract proceedings brought against Mr Mulrooney and his father in 2002, the Mulrooney’s were ordered to pay €12,276 damages to the lessor, Mr Edward Malone. An appeal against this order was struck out in 2005, and in 2008, further proceedings were struck out as frivolous.

In 2009, Mr Mulrooney made numerous complaints to members of An Garda Siochana, and made a formal complaint stating that the dates on the lease had been unlawfully altered. The lease documents were examined by a handwriting expert who concluded that there was no evidence of alteration.

In 2011, Mr Mulrooney’s father brought proceedings against a copious number of defendants, alleging that:

The proceedings were dismissed and the case was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court. In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, the proceedings were dismissed as an abuse of process and Mr Mulrooney agreed to withdraw his claim.

The Court also heard that, in 2015, further proceedings were brought against John Shee and Company Solicitors seeking damages and the return of the lease.

High Court Order

Mr Justice Eager was satisfied that the Supreme Court was correct in dismissing Mr Mulrooney’s proceedings as an abuse of process. In the present proceedings, the issues raised were the same as those raised in previous proceedings.

Justice Eager found that the manner in which Mr Mulrooney pleaded his claim constituted frivolous and vexatious proceedings, and consequently had “no hesitation” in dismissing Mr Mulrooney’s claim against the defendants on the grounds that it was an abuse of process, on the grounds that it failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, and that it was frivolous and vexatious.

Furthermore, the claim had no reasonable grounds of success or alternatively it was bound to fail.

Isaac Wunder Order

The defendants also sought an Isaac Wunder order against Mr Mulrooney restraining him from issuing further proceedings without the leave of the court, in relation to the issue of the terms of the lease and the allegation of fraud.

Justice Eager explained that it was necessary to strike a balance between the constitutional right of the individual of access to the courts and the onus on the Court to prevent vexatious litigation and litigation which is an abuse of process.

In the present proceedings Mr. Mulrooney sought to relitigate matters which had already been litigated and settled by him and his father.

As such, Justice Eager made a Wunder Order in the following terms:

“It is ordered that the plaintiff be restrained from the institution of any proceedings whatsoever, whether by summons or notice of motion or by application to the Court against the defendants in this case, or any other defendants against whom the plaintiff has previously initiated pleadings, in relation to the alleged amending of the lease by way of fraud, the subject matter of the proceedings”.

This Wunder Order included bringing proceedings against any public bodies including the Courts Service.

Notwithstanding the above, Justice Eager explained that Mr Mulrooney had not exhausted his domestic remedies and would be entitled to appeal this judgment to the Court of Appeal.