Brennan v Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Eileen Roberts
• Judgment Date: 07 March 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] IEHC 107
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 2022 No. 1213P

Between

Edward Brennan

Plaintiff

and

Ireland, The Attorney General, The Minister for Justice and Equality and Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company trading as Start Mortgages

Defendants

[2023] IEHC 107

2022 No. 1213P

THE HIGH COURT

Breach of duty – Bound to fail – Frivolous and vexatious proceedings – Defendants seeking to strike out the plaintiff’s claim – Whether the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious and bound to fail

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Brennan, claimed damages in the amount of “3 million Euros” for breach of duty and “breach of constitutional duty” by the defendants. On 27 January 2023, the High Court heard three motions, as follows: (a) a motion by the first, second and third defendants, Ireland, the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice and Equality (the State defendants), for an order pursuant to Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended) (RSC) striking out the plaintiff’s claim against them on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action against them – in the alternative, an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court striking out the plaintiff’s proceedings against the State defendants on the grounds that the proceedings against those defendants were frivolous, vexatious, bound to fail and/or an abuse of process; (b) a motion in similar terms by the fourth defendant, Start Mortgages DAC, who also sought, in the alternative, an order pursuant to Order 19, rule 27 of the RSC striking out the plaintiff’s pleadings against the fourth defendant on the basis that they were unnecessary and/or scandalous, or may tend to prejudice or embarrass a fair trial of an action; (c) a motion by the plaintiff seeking an order joining Mazars as defendants in the proceedings and an order for contempt by Ms Larkin of Mazars who the plaintiff pleaded “sent a threatening letter to the plaintiff dated 2nd June 2022 demanding that the plaintiff vacate his property while knowing that the Plaintiff’s related High Court Constitutional Case No 2022/1213P is pending in the High Court”.

Held by Roberts J that she would grant the defendants the relief sought in their notices of motion to strike out the plaintiff’s claim under Order 19, rule 28 and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction on the grounds that the plaintiff’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendants and that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious and bound to fail. Roberts J was satisfied that the intent of the proceedings was to frustrate the fourth defendant and/or their appointed receiver from taking action which they were legally entitled to take pursuant to the court orders in place and for that reason the proceedings were also an abuse of process. Roberts J was satisfied that the plaintiff’s motion was without merit. Roberts J had not been provided with any evidence that would justify the joinder of Mazars as a party to the proceedings under Order 15 rule 4 of the RSC. Roberts J found that, on the pleadings filed, there was no identifiable relief being sought as against Mazars (or Ms Larkin) as receiver. Roberts J held that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any justifiable basis for adding Mazars as a co-defendant to the proceedings. Roberts J held that the issuing of a letter to the plaintiff calling on him to remove his goods from the property was a routine matter of correspondence between borrowers and receivers carrying out their duties on foot of a deed of appointment and it did not constitute a contempt of court. Roberts J held that there was no suggestion of a breach of any court order by Ms Larkin and no basis whatsoever on which a finding of contempt could then be made against her.

Roberts J made the following orders: (1) an order in favour of the State defendants in the terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of their notice of motion dated 27 October 2022; (2) an order in favour of the fourth defendant in the terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of its notice of motion dated 28 October 2012; (3) an order refusing the plaintiff the relief sought in his notice of motion dated 8 June 2022. Roberts J’s provisional view was that the defendants, having succeeded in their respective motions against the plaintiff, were entitled to recover their costs of the motions and the proceedings to date as against the plaintiff.

Relief sought by the defendants granted. Relief sought by the plaintiff refused.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Eileen Roberts delivered on 7 March 2023

Introduction

1 . On 28 March 2022 the plaintiff issued plenary proceedings against the defendants seeking the following relief:

“ The plaintiff seeks a declaration from the honourable court that their Constitutional Rights have been denied due to the fact that the plaintiff is aware of high court case law No.2018/9410P, where the minister for justice, Charlie Flanagan and the attorney general Seamus wolfe failed to enter an appearance and that case was struck out.

High court case law no. 2018/9410P along with article 40.1 means that like the justice minister and the attorney general, the plaintiff is immune to court summons and any summons brought against the plaintiff must be struck out.

The plaintiff is aware that there is an investigation by the department of justice under 2 reference numbers: DJE-MO-00516 and DJE-M0-00889-2019 also pulse no. HQCSO.-1-348140/16 from garda commissioner in relation to this constitutional crisis.

I have been the victim of court summons and as happened with the justice minister and the attorney general, the case against me should have been struck out.

The plaintiff is aware of how the DPP failed to comply with high court order no. 2006//1114P and like the OPP the plaintiff is immune to court order number 2014/00262 and 2017/37 ca

The plaintiff is aware that the state, since September 2019, has failed to provide a defense in related constitutional case number 2019/6501P

The plaintiff is aware that the state has failed to enter an appearance in related constitutional cases number 2018/9410P and case number 2021/2308P.

The plaintiff is protected from all court summons and court orders under article 40.1 of the constitution also under article 2 of the treaty of Europe.

The plaintiff will provide a detailed statement of claim and reserves the right to provide additional evidence at as it becomes known.

The plaintiffs claim for damages is 3 million Euros”.

2 . An Appearance was entered by the chief state solicitor on behalf of the first, second and third named defendants (the ‘ State defendants’) on 4 May 2022.

3 . An Appearance was entered by solicitors on behalf of the fourth named defendant on 1 July 2022.

4 . A statement of claim was delivered by the plaintiff on 17 August 2022. The statement of claim repeats the relief sought in the plenary summons as set out above. There are also generalised claims for “ breach of duty and breach of constitutional duty” pleaded as against all defendants but no particulars are provided. In addition to the matters which had been pleaded in the plenary summons the statement of claim also contained the following additional plea: –

“ The plaintiff is aware of article 40. 5 of the constitution that the dwelling of every citizen is inviolable.

I say that I have been bought by start mortgages for financial gain, trafficked, a human slave sold into servitude and bought for their financial enrichment, sold to the highest bidder, All dignity stripped away, all respect and equality ignored,

No regard for the mental torture and anguish forcibly inflicted.

All of which should be repugnant to any democratic free society.

I say that I claim all my constitutional rights under the Irish Constitution, the European constitution and the European courts of human rights.”.

5 . On 27 January 2023 this court heard 3 motions, as follows:

• (a) A motion by the State defendants for an order pursuant to order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended) (‘ RSC’) striking out the plaintiff's claim against them on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action against them. In the alternative, an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this court striking out the plaintiff's proceedings against the State defendants on the grounds that the proceedings against those defendants are frivolous, vexatious, bound to fail and/or an abuse of process.

• (b) A motion in similar terms by the fourth named defendant who also sought, in the alternative, an Order pursuant to order 19, rule 27 of the RSC striking out the plaintiff's pleadings against the fourth named defendant on the basis that they are unnecessary and/or scandalous, or may tend to prejudice or embarrass a fair trial of an action.

• (c) A motion by the plaintiff seeking an order joining Mazars as defendants in these proceedings and an order for contempt by Hilary Larkin of Mazars who the plaintiff pleads “ sent a threatening letter to the plaintiff dated 2 ^nd JUNE 2022 demanding that the plaintiff vacate his property while knowing that the Plaintiff's related High Court Constitutional Case No 2022/1213P is pending in the High Court”.

6 . This judgment set out this court's decision on all 3 motions.

The parties and the background to this dispute

7 . The plaintiff is a farmer from Cloonerra, Strokestown Co Roscommon (the ‘ Property’)

8 . The fourth named defendant, by deed of appointment dated 19 May 2022 appointed Hilary Larkin of Mazars as receiver over the Property on foot of a mortgage dated 21 August 2006 made between the plaintiff and Irish life and Permanent plc (the ownership of which mortgage and related security subsequently transferred to the fourth named defendant on 1 February 2019).

9 . The defendants claim to be strangers to the proceedings referred to by the plaintiff in the plenary summons and the statement of claim being proceedings 2018/9410P and 2021/2308P...