Moore (plaintiff) v Moore and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Roderick Murphy,Miss Justice Laffoy
Judgment Date10 December 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] IEHC 263,[2010] IEHC 462
Date10 December 2010
Docket Number[2007 No. 8143
CourtHigh Court

[2010] IEHC 263

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 8143P/2007]
Moore v Moore & Chetty

BETWEEN

MAUREEN MOORE
PLAINTIFF

AND

JOHN MOORE, MARIE MOORE AND NADINE CHETTY
DEFENDANTS

CONSTITUTION ART 38.1

DILLON v DUNNES STORES (GEORGES STREET) LTD & ORS 1966 IR 397

O'FLYNN & O'REGAN v MID-WESTERN HEALTH BOARD & ORS 1991 2 IR 223 1991/5/1098

G (C) v APPEAL CMRS 2005 2 IR 472 2005/27/5522 2005 IEHC 121

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Adjournment

Criminal investigation - Potential prosecution - Admissibility of evidence - Privilege against self-incrimination - Prejudice - Whether prejudicial or unjust to give evidence in civil proceedings - Whether civil proceedings presented risk to fair trial in criminal proceedings - Whether civil proceedings should be postponed until after criminal trial - Dillon v Dunnes Stores Ltd [1966] IR 397; O'Flynn v Mid-Western Health Board [1991] 2 IR 223 and G(C) v Appeal Commissioners [2005] 2 IR 473 considered - Constitution of Ireland 1937, art 38.1Application refused (2007/8143 - Laffoy J - 1/7/2010) [2010] IEHC 263

Moore v Moore

Facts The first and second named defendants herein sought an adjournment to the Michaelmas term of the hearing of these proceedings which was due to take place on 13 July 2010. The proceedings arose out of the sale by the first and second defendants of premises in Dublin to the third defendant. However, in 2009 a criminal investigation was commenced in relation to allegations of fraud against the first and second defendants in relation to that sale of property. The defendants sought to adjourn these proceedings on the basis that they may be exposed to a risk of prejudice or injustice by giving evidence in the civil proceedings which might then be admissible in the criminal proceedings if such proceedings are brought or may be used as a material factor in the decision of the DPP as to whether to prosecute or not. Essentially the defendants claimed that the civil proceedings may present a risk to a fair trial and breach their constitutional rights under Article 38. 1 of the Constitution.

Held by Laffoy J. in refusing the application to adjourn the proceedings: That in this case there was no evidence that the defendants would be required to give evidence of a self-incriminating nature at the hearing of these proceedings. If the DPP decided to prosecute it would be a matter for the trial judge, by appropriate rulings, to protect the constitutional rights of the defendants. In any event, there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the DPP would have made a decision in relation to the matter one way or the other by the Michaelmas term.

Dillon v. Dunne's Stores Ltd. [1996] I.R. 397 &

O'Flynn v. Mid-Western Health Board [1991] 2 I.R. 223 &

C.G. v Appeal Commissioners [2005] 2 I.R. 473 considered.

Reporter: L.O'S.

1

1. On this application the first and second defendants seek an order adjourning these proceedings, which are listed for hearing on 13 th July, 2010, to a date in the Michaelmas term or such other date as may be fixed by the Court. The application is opposed by the plaintiff.

2

2. There was a long procedural history to these proceedings, which were commenced by plenary summons which issued on 2 nd November, 2007, before 10 th May, 2010 when an order was made by the Court (Murphy J.) giving leave to the plaintiff to deliver an amended statement of claim. I consider what happened before the making of that order to be irrelevant to the issues which arise on this application.

3

3. Following the order of 10 th May, 2010 an amended statement of claim was delivered by the plaintiff to the first and second defendants on 11 th May, 2010. An amended defence was delivered by the first and second defendants on 26 th May, 2010. The plaintiff's amended reply was delivered on 8 th June, 2010 and on the same day the plaintiff furnished replies to particulars sought by the first and second defendants.

4

4. The matter was in the list to fix dates of the 17 th May, 2010. On that occasion, the first and second defendants sought to have the matter adjourned to the next list of fixed dates on the basis that they required to raise particulars. That application was refused but directions were given in relation to delivery of particulars and the matter was put in the Court list for mention on 17 th June, 2010 to ensure that the directions would have been complied with. The proceedings were then listed for hearing on 13 th July, 2010. On 17 th June, 2010 counsel for the first and second defendant sought leave to bring this application.

5

5. The proceedings arise out of the sale by the first and second defendants of premises in Dublin to the third defendant in 2002. The premises were, apparently, registered on a leasehold folio on which John Moore, the father of the first and second defendants, and the plaintiff, the stepmother of the first and second defendants, were registered as joint owners. The first and second defendants made title to the premises on the basis that they were the personal representatives of the surviving joint owner, their father, who died in 1996. In making title they produced a statutory declaration which exhibited a death certificate of a person of the same name as the plaintiff with an address in Dublin who died in 1995 at the age of 57 years.

6

6. In the amendment to the statement of claim it is alleged by the plaintiff that the first and second defendants obtained that death certificate, which they knew or ought to have known was not the death certificate of the plaintiff, and fraudulently relied on it to amend the register, meaning the register maintained by the Property Registration Authority, so as to reflect a false position whereby their father was shown as having at the date of his death, been the sole person beneficially entitled to the premises, thus enabling them, as his personal representatives, to deal with the property and to dispose of the same to the third defendant, notwithstanding the interest of the plaintiff. In the amended defence, the first and second defendants deny that they knew or ought to have known that the death certificate was not the death certificate of the plaintiff. They deny that they acted fraudulently.

7

7. The basis on which the first and second defendants seek an adjournment is that in 2009, following a report to An Garda Síochána, a criminal investigation commenced in relation to allegations of fraud against the first and second defendants, who were interviewed by the investigating Gardaí. They have been informed that the investigations are complete and that the file has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), whose decision as to whether to prosecute the defendants is awaited. The ground on which they seek to have the civil proceedings adjourned is that they "may be exposed to a risk of prejudice or injustice as in order to defend this action we may give evidence which might be considered voluntarily given", as deposed to by the first defendant. The first defendant has further averred that they have been advised that "we could not be certain that such evidence would not be admissible at a criminal trial and therefore we would effectively be waiving our privilege against self-incrimination". Therefore, it is contended that the civil proceedings may present a risk to a fair trial and breach of their constitutional rights under Article 38.1 of the Constitution. It is also contended that the evidence which they may give at the hearing of the civil action, if it proceeds on 13 th July, 2010, could be used as the material factor in the decision of the DPP as to whether to prosecute or not.

8

8. It is also contended by the first and second defendants that the introduction of the allegation of fraud so late in the proceedings has created a situation which is "inherently wrong, unfair and potentially very prejudicial" to them in the defence of the civil action, prior to the decision of the DPP as to whether to prosecute. In relation to that contention, I am satisfied that the first and second defendants have been afforded ample opportunity to deal with the fresh allegation made by the plaintiff late in the proceedings, so that no prejudice arises from the lateness factor.

9

9. The Court was referred to three authorities on the priority of criminal proceedings and civil proceedings in relation to issues arising out of the same facts.

10

10. The first was the decision of the Supreme Court in Dillon v. Dunne's Stores Ltd. [1966] I.R. 397. In that case, one of the defendants in an action for false imprisonment sought and was granted an adjournment of the civil proceedings in the High Court on the ground that he was a witness for the prosecution in related criminal proceedings against the plaintiff for larceny which were pending before the Circuit Court, the first criminal trial having been aborted. In delivering judgment in the Supreme Court, Ó Dálaigh C.J. stated:

"... no authority has been referred to which would warrant the Court in seeking to postpone [the civil action] until after the final determination of the criminal proceedings. As the plaintiff could not have had an order to postpone the criminal proceedings until the termination of her civil action, equally the hearing of the civil action cannot be required to await the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. No considerations of public policy are in question."

11

11. The decision in Dillon v. Dunne's Stores was considered by the Supreme Court in O'Flynn v. Mid-Western Health Board [1991] 2 I.R. 223 in the context of an allegation by the applicants in judicial review proceedings that the first respondent, the Mid-Western Health Board, had delayed in initiating the inquiry, which related to matters which had been the subject of a Garda investigation, the holding of which the applicants...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Case Number: ADJ-00030074. Workplace Relations Commission
    • Ireland
    • Workplace Relations Commission
    • 1 July 2022
    ...This issue was first explored by the the High Court in 2010 in the case of McKenzie -v- The Minister for Finance and Others [2010] IEHC 462 that the Payment of Wages Act “has no application to reductions as distinct from ‘deductions’.” As such, employers could seek to reduce an employee’s p......
  • Earagail Eisc Teoranta v Ann Marie Doherty and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 June 2015
    ...of Edwards J. in McKenzie and the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association v. The Minister for Finance and Others [2010] IEHC 462. That case concerned a challenge to the implementation of a Department of Finance Circular to the 'RDF Allowance' which provided for reduc......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT