Mannion v Legal Aid Board
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Max Barrett |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IEHC 358 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | 2010 No. 11464P 2013 No. 13515P |
[2017] IEHC 358
THE HIGH COURT
Barrett J.
2010 No. 11464P
2013 No. 13515P
AND
AND
Legal Aid – Practice & Procedures – Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 – Res judicata – Lack of cause of action – Vexatious proceedings
Facts: The Chief State Solicitor's office had filed a motion to strike out the plaintiff's claim against second to fourth defendants on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. The said defendants claimed that the present proceedings were barred under the doctrine of res judicata as the plaintiff's previous claim instituted on same set of circumstances was dismissed by the Supreme Court on appeal.
Mr. Justice Max Barrett dismissed the plaintiff's case against second to fourth defendants. The Court held that the plaintiff had filed a substantive claim against the first defendant for rendering deficient services previously which had attained finality. The Court held that the plaintiff could not now re-litigate the same issue. The Court found that the present proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.
I. Background
The origins of Ms Mannion's claims in the above-entitled proceedings appear to date back to certain litigation arising out of the purchase of a property in Tralee close on 30 years ago. In the course of that litigation, Ms Mannion retained a number of firms of solicitors. However, as the matter progressed, she became unable to afford legal representation and made an application for free legal aid to the Legal Aid Board.
In 2006, Ms Mannion instituted judicial review proceedings against the Legal Aid Board, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Legal Aid Board had failed to provide Ms Mannion with a solicitor in private practice, rather than a solicitor who was employed by the Legal Aid Board, a state of affairs that Ms Mannion contended was a breach of her constitutional rights and also contrary to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ms Mannion further alleged that the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 fails to satisfy the constitutional obligations of the Minister for Justice and Ireland and the Attorney General in relation to the provision of free legal aid for civil cases in breach of Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
For the purposes of her judicial review application, Ms Mannion was represented before the High Court by both junior and senior counsel. Her application was unsuccessful, with the judge who heard it (McGovern J.) noting inter alia in his judgment (see Mannion v. The Legal Aid Board and ors [2007] IEHC 413, 21) that he did not consider that there was ‘ any failure on the part of the respondents [i.e. the Board, the Minister, Ireland and the Attorney General] to meet the requirements of natural or constitutional justice’. An appeal to the Supreme Court, in which Ms Mannion appears to have represented herself, likewise proved unsuccessful (see Mannion v. The Legal Aid Board and ors [2010] IESC 9).
Following the dismissal by the Supreme Court of the just-mentioned appeal, Ms Mannion, on 14th December, 2010, issued a plenary summons in High Court proceedings No. 2020/ 11464P; however, no statement of claim issued until 16th February, 2015. Notably, Ms Mannion, on 9th December, 2013, also issued a further plenary summons in High Court proceedings No. 2013/ 13515P; on foot of this later plenary summons, Ms Mannion delivered a further statement of claim on 2nd March, 2015. Although both statements of claim differ in certain non-material respects, they both arise from the same set of circumstances and have the same or practically similar objectives.
On 29th September, 2015, the Chief State Solicitor's Office, acting for the second, third and fourth-named defendants, wrote to Ms Mannion alleging that her proceedings were misconceived, unsustainable, bound to fail, and frivolous and vexatious. Following some further interaction between the parties, the Chief State Solicitor's Office wrote to Ms Mannion on 10th November, 2016, informing her of that Office's intention to seek to have both sets of proceedings struck out and, not ungenerously in the circumstances, offering that each side would bear its/her own costs to that time if Ms Mannion would agree formally to discontinue her proceedings. Ms Mannion declined to do so. As a consequence, on 30th January last, the Chief State Solicitor's Office issued two notices of motion (one in each set of proceedings) seeking: (1) an order striking out Ms Mannion's claim against the second, third and fourth-named defendants on the grounds that her case as pleaded in her statement of claim is bound to fail; (2) a like order on the grounds that Ms Mannion's case as pleaded in her statement of claim is frivolous and vexatious; and (3) certain ancillary reliefs.
i. A Summary Chronology.
Ms Mannion has provided notably detailed statements of claim and affidavits in the within proceedings, so much so that perhaps the most efficient way of treating with them is by way of the annotated chronology below which flags in truncated form what seem to the court to be among the principal events relating to the within application. Where a precise date of a particular event is not known or not strictly relevant, the court identifies at the relevant point of its chronology the sequence in time at which the event described occurred.
Summer 1995 Ms Mannion seeks assistance of the Legal Aid Board to assist her in a claim against a solicitor for alleged negligence, conflict of interest and breach of contract. The Board also later takes over the running of a separate but related claim against a builder.
March, 1998 District Court case hearing of claims adjourned.
July, 1998 Ms Mannion fails against the solicitor and is partly successful against the builder but is disappointed with the damages awarded.
Thereafter Ms Mannion applies to the Legal Aid Board to appeal the decision of the District Court. This application is denied. Ms Mannion herself brings an unsuccessful appeal. Following this unsuccessful appeal, Ms Mannion, inter alia, commences proceedings against the solicitors who originally had charge of the proceedings against the builder, alleging that they had acted negligently and in breach of contract and also bullied her. Ms Mannion then runs through a series of solicitors in seeking to prosecute this last-mentioned claim.
November, 2004 Ms Mannion applies to the Legal Aid Board for assistance to progress the claim aforesaid and also a professional negligence claim against the Legal Aid Board.
March, 2005 Ms Mannion requests that the Legal Aid Board provide her with an independent solicitor to represent her in her proceedings against the Board. This is declined.
Late-2005 Ms Mannion engages a private solicitor to progress her judicial review proceedings.
7th December, 2007 Ms Mannion's judicial review application fails before McGovern J.
26th February, 2010 Ms Mannion's appeal to the Supreme Court fails.
Thereafter Ms Mannion seeks unsuccessfully to have a complaint admitted to hearing by the European Court of Human Rights. On 14th December, 2010, Ms Mannion issues a plenary summons in High Court proceedings No. 2010/ 11464P seeking damages from the defendants for, inter alia, negligence, breach of contract and breach of statutory duty. Ms Mannion's ongoing negligence case against the solicitors who initially represented her in her claim against the builders is set down for hearing in December 2011. Ms Mannion applies to the Legal Aid Board for legal aid in these proceedings.
December, 2011 Following application by the defendant solicitors (and, it seems, the Legal Aid Board) Ms Mannion's claim against the defendant solicitors is dismissed.
Thereafter Ms Mannion applies to the Legal Aid Board for legal aid to fund an appeal against the dismissal aforesaid.
9th December, 2013 Ms Mannion issues a plenary summons in High Court proceedings No. 2013/ 13515P seeking damages from the defendants for, inter alia, negligence, breach of contract and breach of statutory duty.
June, 2016 Ms Mannion succeeds before the Court of Appeal in her appeal against the dismissal by the High Court in December 2011 of her professional negligence claim against the Legal Aid Board.
24th January, 2017 Ms Mannion's initial negligence case against the Legal Aid Board is settled in her favour.
ii. Statements of Claim.
As mentioned above, although the statements of claim in Ms Mannion's High Court proceedings Nos. 2010/ 11464P and 2013/ 13515P differ in certain non-material respects, they both arise from the same set of circumstances and have the same or practically similar objectives. However, in her statement of claim delivered on 2nd March, 2015, concerning the later-instituted proceedings, Ms Mannion helpfully identifies which particular segments of that statement of claim pertain to the Legal Aid Board and which to the other defendants, stating as follows in respect of those other defendants (the emphases appear in the original):
‘ 9. The following paragraphs relate to claims against the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, the Attorney General and Ireland.
10. In July 2004, the High Court caused a discontinuity and subsequent delay to the plaintiff's case…by permitting her legal team to come off record….[Kearns P.] ordered all parties to convene to try to resolve the area of disagreement and return to court ten days thereafter…....
To continue reading
Request your trial