Michael O'Reilly v Maria Hallihan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hogan |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] IEHC 509 |
| Docket Number | [2011 No. 9059P] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 10 December 2012 |
[2012] IEHC 509
THE HIGH COURT
AND
Practice and procedure - Abuse of process - Serving proceedings in person - Nomination of solicitor - order 12, rule 7 Rules of the Superior Courts
Facts: The defendant was involved in proceedings to make the plaintiff bankrupt. The Revenue Solicitor entered an appearance for the defendant in the proceedings. The plaintiff insisted that he was entitled to serve the defendant in person, at her place of employment and at her home, her nomination of a solicitor to defend the proceedings notwithstanding. The Court sought a direction from the Court that the plaintiff would be ordered to refrain from serving pleadings on her personally or otherwise from corresponding with her save through her nominated solicitor in relation to the litigation. The question arose as to the extent such conduct was an abuse of process and the nature of the conduct of the plaintiff pursuant to Order 12 rule 7 Rules of the Superior Courts.
Held by Hogan J. that the conduct of the plaintiff amounted in the circumstances to an abuse of process.
1. The decision by a defendant to be legally represented and to have an appearance in the proceedings entered by his or her solicitor in accordance with O. 12, rr. 5 and 7 RSC is one of the most routine features of the entire administration of justice. It might, therefore, seem surprising that the implications of such a step have but rarely been judicially considered. This, however, is one such case.
2. The defendant is an executive officer in the Management Information Services Unit of the Collector-General's division of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. At some stage between 2003 and 2005, Ms. Hallihan was involved in the preparation of a proposal to make the plaintiff, Mr. O'Reilly, bankrupt and, in this regard, provided instructions in subsequent proceedings involving the Collector-General and the plaintiff. The gist of the plaintiff's case is that Ms. Hallihan "knowingly" set out details in amaterial and substantial fashion in a proposal for bankruptcy. Not surprisingly, these matters may be taken to be very much in dispute so far as these proceedings are concerned. The Revenue Solicitor entered an appearance on behalf of the defendant in these proceedings on the 21 st October, 2011.
3. At the heart of the facts giving rise to this present application is the plaintiff's insistence that he is entitled to serve the defendant in person, both at her place of employment and at her home, her nomination of a solicitor to defend the proceedings notwithstanding. The undisputed evidence is that the plaintiff has, in fact, done just this. Thus, for example, in November, 2011 Mr. O'Reilly arrived at Ms. Hallihan's workplace and announced that he had High Court proceedings for service on her. A month later, Mr. O'Reilly arrived at Ms. Hallihan's own family home and when she was not present, served pleadings in this case on her elderly and frail father who lives nearby.
4. Ms. Hallihan was naturally upset by these developments. She maintains his insistence on serving her personally with pleadings and correspondence has given rise to inconvenience in her defence of these proceedings, and is an interference with her entitlement to retain legal representation for the purposes of her defence. One can also immediately understand how insisting on personal service on a litigant in such circumstances would be overbearing and could give rise to embarrassment. Other family members, workplace colleagues and neighbours might well assume that such proceedings related to the defendant's personal affairs and might find assurances that they were concerned with her employment puzzling or even implausible.
5. It is to this end that the defendant seeks a direction from this Court to the effect that the plaintiff be ordered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doyle v Min for Justice and Others
...of s.27C. In this regard, the applicant relies on the decision of Hogan J. in Byrne (a minor) v the Director of Oberstown School [2012] 12 JIC 1002 where Hogan J. stated - "it can be said a custodial regime which brings about such a stark difference in terms of the release dates of the offe......