Moran -v- Minister for Health & Children,  IEHC 255 (2009)
|Docket Number:||2001 12014 P|
|Party Name:||Moran, Minister for Health & Children|
THE HIGH COURT2001 12014 P
THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND CHILDRENDEFENDANTJudgment of Mr. Justice de Valera delivered on the 19th day of March, 2009.
The plaintiff herein commenced this action by issuing a plenary summons on the 27th July, 2001.
A statement of claim was subsequently delivered on the 15th February, 2002.
Previously judicial review proceedings by the same plaintiff against the same defendant (Record No. 1997 - 383 J.R.) had been issued and a judgment delivered by the President of the High Court, the Honourable Mr. Justice Frederick Morris, on the 15th December, 1998.
On the 17th November, 2003 following a motion by the defendant, the Honourable Mr. Justice Kelly directed that a preliminary issue be tried as follows:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff's claim herein and/or each several aspect thereof is barred and/or whether the plaintiff is estopped from maintaining same by virtue of the same arising out of matters which might have been brought forward at the time of and in the course of High Court Judicial Review Record No. 1997 - 383 J.R. between the plaintiff herein as applicant and the defendant herein as respondent together with the Minister for Finance as co-respondent heard by the High Court (Morris P.) and dismissed on or about the 15th December, 1997.
(2) Whether the maintenance of the plaintiff's claim herein amounts to an abuse of process and/or is contrary to public policy and in consequence whether the plaintiff's claim and/or the several parts thereof should be dismissed.
On foot of this order, this matter came before me on 10th October, 2006 by way of oral argument with comprehensive written submissions from both parties.
Having considered these submissions, both written and oral, I am satisfied that the defendant is entitled to an order striking out the contents of the statement of claim (delivered on the 15th February, 2002) save for paragraphs 1 to 4 therein and paragraph 17 with the exception of the first sentence thereof and all particulars contained in the said statement of claim relevant thereto.
It is well settled law since the judgment of Wigram V.C. in Henderson and Henderson  3 H.A.R.E. 100 at 114 and 115 that a plaintiff will not be permitted to introduce into subsequent proceedings matters which could have been included in initial or previous proceedings save in exceptional circumstances. This judgment states (inter alia):-
"I believe I state the rule of the Court...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL