Moran v Oakley Park Developments Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan
• Judgment Date: 31 March 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IEHC 39
• Date: 31 March 2000
• Court: High Court

[2000] IEHC 39

THE HIGH COURT

1998 No. 13574p

MORAN v. OAKLEY PARK DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

BETWEEN

EOIN MORAN

PLAINTIFF

AND

OAKLEY PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

RSC O.19 r28

JODIFERN LTD V FITZGERALD UNREP MCCRACKEN 28.7.1999

BARRY V BUCKLEY 1981 IR 306

SUN FAT CHAN V OSSEOUS LTD 1992 1 IR 425

SUPERMACS (IRL) V KATESAN (NAAS) LTD UNREP MACKEN 15.3.1999

MULHALL V HAREN 1981 1 IR 364

BOYLE V LEE & GOINS 1992 1 IR 555

KELLY V IRISH NURSARY & LANDSCAPE CO LTD 1983 IR 221

MACKEY V WILDE & LONGIN 1998 2 IR 578 1998 1 ILRM 449

K (D) V KING 1994 1 IR 166

Synopsis

Practice and Procedure

Practice and procedure; notice of motion; inherent jurisdiction; plaintiff seeking judgment in default of defence and specific performance of contract to purchase land and build premises; defendant seeking Order vacating a lis pendens and dismissing plaintiff's claim pursuant to O.19, r.28, Rules of the Superior Courts; whether plaintiff had an arguable case which is neither frivolous or vexatious.

Held: Applications dismissed.

Moran v. Oakley Park Developments Ltd. - High Court: O'Donovan J. - 31/03/2000

The plaintiff had initiated proceedings against the defendant regarding the sale of land. The plaintiff had claimed that a concluded contract had been agreed. The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the pleadings filed by the plaintiff disclosed no reasonable cause of action. O’Donovan J held that on balance the plaintiff had an arguable case which was neither frivolous nor vexatious. The action should therefore proceed to plenary hearing and the defendant’s motion was dismissed.

1 Mr. Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan delivered on the 31 day of March 2000

2 In this case, I am asked to consider a Motion on behalf of the Plaintiff dated the 1st day of October, 1999 seeking Judgment in default of Defence and a Motion on behalf of the Defendants dated the 1st day of November, 1999 seeking; on the one hand, an Order vacating a Lis Tendens registered by the Plaintiff and, on the other, an Order dismissing the Plaintiff's claim, either pursuant to Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, or pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; the Defendants maintaining, in either case that the Plaintiff's claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, or that the same is frivolous or vexatious.

3 Although the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion was first in point of time, it was agreed by the parties that I should first of all adjudicate upon the Defendants' Notice of Motion dated the 1st of November, 1999 and, in that regard, it was conceded by Mr. George Brady, Senior Counsel on behalf of the Defendants that the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim disclosed a cause of action and, accordingly, for the purpose of adjudicating upon the reliefs sought by the Defendants, I must assume that the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim and the facts asserted in the grounding Affidavit sworn herein by the Plaintiff, Eoin Moran, on the 10th day of December, 1999 are true.

4 Before considering the facts of the case, I think it as well to set out the circumstances under which the Court has power to dismiss the Plaintiff's proceedings. In this regard, Rule 28 of Order 19 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides:

"The Court may order any pleading to be struck out on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer and in any such case or in case of the action or defence been shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, the Court may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or Judgment to be entered accordingly as may be just".

5 In addition to that specific rule, there is an inherent jurisdiction in the Court to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the Court. In that regard, in an unreported Judgment delivered on the 28th day of July, 1999 in the case of Jodifern Limited v. Patrick G. Fitzgerald and Margaret Fitzgerald, McCracken J. reviewed what appears to me to be the relevant authorities and, in particular, he referred, with apparent approval, to a Judgment of Costello J. delivered in the case of Barry v. Buckley ( 19811.R. at page 306) and a Judgment of McCarthy J. in the Supreme Court delivered in a case of Sun Fat Chan v. Osseous Limited (1992 1.1.R. at page 425); the import of which Judgments is that, while the jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases so that, generally speaking, that Courts should be slow to entertain such applications, if, having considered all relevant documentation, the Court is satisfied that a plaintiffs claim must fail, then it is a proper exercise of its discretion to strike out proceedings on the grounds that their continued existence cannot be justified and manifestly causes irrevocable damage to a defendant. In addition, McCracken J. referred to an unreported Judgment delivered on the 15th day of March, 1999 by Macken J. in the case of Supermacs (Ireland) & Anor v. Katesan (Naas) Limited & Anor in which, when considering this inherent jurisdiction of the Court, the learned Judge said:

"Turning now to the question as to whether of not the defendants are entitled to have their relief relying on the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, when one is considering a claim of this nature based on the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, it is permissible for Affidavit evidence to be filed. A number of Affidavits have been filed and, although there are several conflicting elements in the Affidavits there are certain principles which Mr. Buttenshaw has correctly acknowledged and conceded, including the fact that I must assume;"

(a) that every fact pleaded by the plaintiffs in their Statement of Claim is correct and can be proved at trial, and

(b) that every fact asserted by the plaintiffs in their Affidavits is likewise correct and can be proved at the trial"

6 This particular approach which is adopted as being the correct approach in all of the cases in which Affidavit evidence has been adduced does mean that, insofar as there may be conflict between matters averred by the plaintiffs and the defendants in their respective Affidavits, such conflicts must be, at least for the purpose of this application, resolved in favour of the plaintiff"

7 McCracken J. expressed his...