Morrissey v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (in Special Liquidation) and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Costello |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 200 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 11 March 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 200
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Debt proceedings – Institution of new proceedings – Statement of claim – Res judicata.
Facts: The defendants brought a motion to strike out the new proceedings instituted by the plaintiff on the ground that the issues involved had already been adjudicated upon in the debt proceedings or remain to be determined and therefore principle of res judicata applied.
Ms. Justice Costello held that the motions brought by the defendants to strike out all or part of the proceedings as constituting an abuse of process would be granted. The Court determined that all issues raised in the Statement of Claim had been decided in the debt proceedings; therefore, the principle of res judicata would apply.
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Costello delivered the 11th day of March, 2015
Delivered on the 19th December 2014, by Black & Co. Solicitors on behalf of the Plaintiff
1. This judgment is to be read in conjunction with a judgment I am delivering on the same day in a related matter entitled LSREF III Stone Investments Ltd. v. John Morrissey, Rec. No. 2011/1548 S ("the Debt proceedings judgment"). This judgment concerns motions brought by the first, third and fourth named defendants ("the IBRC defendants") and separately by the second named defendant ("Stone") to strike out all or part of these proceedings ("the New proceedings") as constituting an abuse of process. It is not concerned with the case pleaded against the fifth, sixth or seventh defendants ("the State defendants"). It is based on the fact that in the related proceedings ("the Debt proceedings") many of the issues now sought to be agitated have already either been determined or have been excluded or remain to be determined in the Debt proceedings. It is argued that the institution and maintenance of these proceedings therefore is seeking to re-litigate matters which have been decided or could have been decided or matters which more properly remain to be decided in the Debt proceedings.
2. In the Debt proceedings judgment I have set out a detailed recital of the history of the Debt proceedings and of the matters which have been decided to date in the Debt proceedings. I have also analysed the Amended Defence and Counterclaim delivered on 16 th January, 2015, in the Debt proceedings and I have ruled on the matters therein pleaded which either have been determined in those proceedings or which have been ruled out in the Debt proceedings and which cannot now be raised in the Debt proceedings. I adopt the recital and the rulings in this judgment. I do not propose repeating the facts and conclusions set out in the Debt proceedings judgment. I use the same terminology in this judgment that I use in the Debt proceedings judgment. Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Ltd. is "Anglo" or "the Bank" as the context requires. I attach the Statement of Claim of 19 th December, 2014, which runs to 58 pages and 110 paragraphs as a schedule to this judgment for ease of reference.
3. The IBRC defendants brought a motion to strike out the proceedings on the basis that the claims advanced in the Statement of Claim are each barred by the principle of res judicata and the rule in Henderson v. Henderson because all of the pleas which have been raised in the Statement of Claim in the New proceedings have either already been adjudicated upon by way of judgments delivered in the Debt proceedings or they remain to be dealt with in the final module of that case. They argued that the New proceedings constitute an impermissible attempt to re-litigate matters which have already been determined in the Debt proceedings or they amount to a collateral challenge to the decisions in the Debt proceedings and thus constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.
4. Stone brought a similar motion on the same principles. In addition, it seeks an order staying the New proceedings and preventing Mr. Morrissey from taking any further steps within the New proceedings pending the determination of the Debt proceedings.
5. It is a fundamental principle of law that a party should not be entitled to re-litigate matters or raise issues which have already been determined by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties and their privies. This is known as the principle of res judicata. But beyond the strict limitations of res judicata the courts have long recognised that there may be abuse of process outside of the relatively confined limitations of the rule and the courts have always been prepared to balance the rights of parties to have their cases heard and determined by the courts with the rights of the opposing parties to fair procedures in the conduct of litigation and, where necessary, to strike out proceedings if they amount to an abuse of process. In addition to the private rights of litigants, there is a public policy interest in ensuring finality of litigation and preventing vexatious litigants from subjecting the same parties to multiple law suits on the same issue. In Re Vantive Holdings [2010] 2 I.R. 118 at pp. 124-125 Murray C.J. said:-
2 "[20] Citizens have the right of access to the courts so that their entitlements, rights and obligations may be determined in accordance with due process. Due process means a right to a fair and complete hearing of the issues of law and fact in any proceedings. The courts have always had an inherent jurisdiction to stay or dismiss proceedings which abuse the due process of the administration of justice where to do otherwise would seriously undermine its effectiveness or integrity. In addition under the rules of court the courts have, in civil proceedings, the power to dismiss proceedings on the grounds that they are "frivolous" or "vexatious". Indeed abuse of process may take many forms according to the context or the nature of the proceedings, such as whether they are criminal or civil. In this case the court is obviously concerned with civil proceedings only.
3 [21] In the High Court and in this court ACC Bank pic relied on the rule of estoppel in Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, but by way of analogy. In his judgment the trial judge stated:-
"The rule in Henderson v. Henderson is to the effect that a party to litigation must make its whole case when the matter is before the court for adjudication and will not afterwards be permitted to reopen the matter to advance new grounds or new arguments which could have been advanced at the time. Save for special cases, the plea of res judicata applies not only to issues actually decided but every point which might have been brought forward in the case. In its more recent application this rule is somewhat mitigated in order to avoid its rigidity by taking into consideration circumstances that might otherwise render its imposition excessive, unfair or disproportionate."
4 [22] Viewing it through the prism of estoppel and res judicata the rule in Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 strictly speaking applies to proceedings between parties where those proceedings determine the rights or obligations between those parties. It is intended, inter alia, to promote finality in proceedings and to protect a party from being harassed by successive actions by another party when the issues between them either were or could have been determined with finality in the first proceedings....
5 [25] Underlying the rule in Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 is the policy of the need to protect the due and proper administration of justice from an abuse of process and uphold the principle of finality in legal proceedings.
He approved of the statement of Bingham L. J. in Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co. [2002] 2 A.C. 1 at p. 31 where he identified the rule in Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 as being an aspect of the doctrine of abuse of process. He noted that it had been cited and approved by the Supreme Court in the judgments of Hardiman J. in Carroll v. Ryan [2003] 1 I.R. 309 and A.A. v. Medical Council [2003] 4 I.R. 302. The statement is as follows:-
"... Henderson v. Henderson abuse of process, as now understood, although separate and distinct from cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel, has much in common with them. The underlying public interest is the same: that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. This public interest is reinforced by the current emphasis on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the interests of the parties and the public as a whole. The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defence in later proceedings may, without more, amount to abuse if the court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or defence should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all. I would not accept that it is necessary, before abuse may be found, to identify any additional element such as a collateral attack on a previous decision or some dishonesty, but where those elements are present the later proceedings will be much more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrissey v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd
...of s. 12 of the Irish Bank Corporation Resolution Act 2013 unless he followed the procedure specified by Ord. 60: see Morrissey v. IBRC [2015] IEHC 200. The constitutional issue was then ultimately addressed in the 2014 proceedings 8 On 5th October 2015 Costello J. gave judgment in the 201......
-
Cronin v Dublin City Sheriff
...9 More recently, the above authorities were discussed in detail in the judgment of the High Court (Costello J.) in Morrissey v. IBRC [2015] IEHC 200. Having referred to the principle of res judicata, Costello J. said that the courts had also long recognised that there may be abuse of proce......
-
George v AVA Trade (EU) Ltd
...Counsel for the defendant also drew my attention to two decisions of Costello J. in Morrissey v. Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd [2015] IEHC 200 and Corbett v. LSREF III Achill Investments Ltd [2016] IEHC 176 where Costello J. at p. 11 and p. 19 respectively succinctly summarised th......
-
Curran and Others v Ulster Bank Ireland DAC and Others
...were considered in cases such as Re Vantive Holdings [2009] IEHC 408 (High Court) and [2020] 2 IR 118, Morrissey v IBRC & Ors [2015] IEHC 200, O'Connor v Sherry Fitzgerald [2018] IECA 67 and George v AVA. Edwards J in O'Connor v Sherry Fitzgerald [2018] IECA 67 stated: “ 76. In her judgment......