Mullins v Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore
• Judgment Date: 20 May 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 296
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2021/3764 P.]

Between

Anthony Mullins

Plaintiff

and

Ireland, The Attorney General, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ken Tyrell and Everyday Finance DAC

Defendants

[2022] IEHC 296

[2021/3764 P.]

THE HIGH COURT

Contempt of court – Perjury – Strike out – Plaintiff asking the High Court to find the fourth and fifth defendants and their solicitors in contempt of court – Whether a letter from the solicitors for the fourth and fifth defendants constituted a contempt of court

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Mullins, sought a declaration from the High Court that his constitutional right under Article 40.1 of the Constitution had been denied due to the fact that he had been the victim of court order No. 2021/547P. On 9th May, 2022, O’Moore J heard three motions in the action. The first motion brought by Mr Mullins asked O’Moore J to find the fourth and fifth defendants, Mr Tyrell and Everyday Finance DAC (Everyday), and their solicitors, in contempt of court, or, alternatively, asked O’Moore J to refer to An Garda Síochána correspondence from the solicitors for those defendants. In the further alternative, O’Moore J was asked to refer the case to the European Court of Human Rights. The second motion brought by Mr Mullins sought an order that O’Moore J direct the Gardaí to investigate perjury which, it was alleged, had been committed by a solicitor for Everyday and Mr Tyrell. By their motion, Mr Tyrell and Everyday sought an order striking out the claim made by Mr Mullins as against them.

Held by O'Moore J that no basis was advanced by Mr Mullins as to how the letter from OSM Partners, the solicitors for Mr Tyrell and Everyday, constituted a contempt; equally, the letter did not involve any denial of Mr Mullins’ entitlement to a hearing in court. O’Moore J held that the letter of 22nd November, 2021 could not properly be described as “threatening”. He held that the issuing of that letter involved no criminal events and reporting the letter to An Garda Síochána for a criminal investigation by that force would be inappropriate. He held that Mr Mullins had, therefore, made out no entitlement to the reliefs claimed in his first motion. O’Moore J refused that motion in its entirety. He held that there was no perjury established against Mr O’Sullivan, solicitor for Everyday and Mr Tyrell, or indeed against Everyday or Mr Tyrell or anyone acting on their behalf. O’Moore J held that the specific allegations against Mr O’Sullivan were utterly misconceived. O’Moore J held that, regardless of his decision on the application by Everyday and Mr Tyrell to strike out the claim made against them in the proceedings, the averments by Mr O’Sullivan were nothing more than an honest statement of his view about the merits of the case taken by Mr Mullins against those defendants. O’Moore J believed that Mr O’Sullivan’s views in that regard were quite correct and decided to make an order striking out the claim made by Mr Mullins against those defendants. O’Moore J therefore refused the relief sought by Mr Mullins in his second motion.

O'Moore J made an order in favor of Everyday and Mr Tyrell striking out the proceedings against them. O’Moore J held that the claims made against those defendants were bound to fail, they did not disclose any cause of action against those defendants, and they were therefore properly described as frivolous and vexatious.

Order in favour of striking out proceedings.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore delivered on the 20th day of May, 2022

1 On 9th May, 2022, I heard three motions in this action. Two of these motions were bought by the plaintiff, Mr. Mullins. The third motion was brought by the fourth and fifth defendants (“Mr. Tyrell and Everyday”). The motions brought by Mr. Mullins are unusual. The first of them asked me to find Everyday and Mr. Tyrell (and their solicitors) in contempt of court, or, alternatively, asked me to refer to An Garda Síochána correspondence from the solicitors for these defendants. In the further alternative, I am asked to refer this case to the European Court of Human Rights. The second motion brought by Mr. Mullins seeks an order that I direct the Gardaí to investigate perjury which, it is alleged, has been committed by a solicitor for Everyday and Mr. Tyrell.

2 The application brought by Mr. Tyrell and Everyday is more mundane, though, in itself, very far reaching and by no means usual. By their motion, Mr. Tyrell and Everyday seek an order striking out the claim made by Mr. Mullins as against them.

3 Out of each of the three applications before me, are, for different reasons, very serious ones I have prepared a written judgment, which is organised in the following sections:-

• (1) Background to these proceeding.

• (2) The nature of these proceedings.

• (3) Mr. Mullins' first motion.

• (4) Mr. Mullins' second motion

• (5) The motion of Everyday and Mr. Tyrell.

(1) The Background to these Proceedings.

4 The background to the current proceedings is set out by Richard O'Sullivan, solicitor for Everyday and Mr. Tyrell, in an affidavit sworn on 7th December, 2021. It is not, in any material way, contradicted by Mr. Mullins or by the State defendants.

5 Mr. O'Sullivan swears that Mr. Mullins obtained “a number of loan facilities” from Allied Irish Banks plc and that the rights, title, interest and benefit under these facilities and security were transferred and assigned to Everyday on 14th June, 2019. Mr. O'Sullivan swears that Mr. Mullins defaulted on the repayment of the monies secured by the mortgage/charge granted to AIB (and transferred to Everyday) which secured the monies advanced to him. As a result, on 26th August, 2020, Mr. Tyrell was appointed as receiver over the properties of Mr. Mullins by Everyday. Mr. O'Sullivan goes on to swear that Mr. Mullins refused to cooperate with Mr. Tyrell in carrying out his functions as receiver, and that Mr. Mullins has “engaged in acts of interference”. Proceedings were, therefore, instituted against Mr. Mullins by plenary summons dated 28th January, 2021. These proceedings are important, and are identified by the Record Number 2020/547 P. By notice of motion in the 547 P proceedings, Mr. Tyrell sought injunctions against Mr. Mullins “requiring him to inter alia, put [Mr. Tyrell] in possession of [the secured properties] and to refrain from interfering with receivership”. This motion was ultimately refused by Allen J. after a hearing of 13th October, 2021. However, after the institution of the 547 P proceedings (but before the decision of Allen J. in late 2021), the current proceedings were issued. I will now set out what they involve.

(2) The Nature of these Proceedings

6 The plenary summons in the current proceedings reads as follows:-

“The Plaintiffs seek a Declaration from the Honourable Court that the Constitutional Rights have been denied due to the fact that the Plaintiff is aware of High Court Case Law 2018/9410 P where the Minister for Justice, Charlie Flanagan, and the Attorney General, Seamus Woulfe, failed to enter an appearance and that case was Struck Out. High Court Case Law 2018/9410 P along with Article 40.1 means that like the Justice Minister and the Attorney General, the Plaintiff is immune to Court Summons and the case in Court against the Plaintiff must be Struck Out.

The Plaintiff is aware that there is an investigation by the Justice Department under three Reference Numbers: DJE-MO-00516–2019, DJE-MO-04404–2019 and DJE-MO-00889–2019, also a Pulse number HQCSO.1–348140/16 from the Garda Commissioner in relation to this Constitutional Crisis.

I have been the Victim of a Court Summon number 2021/547 P and as happened with the Justice Minister and the Attorney General, the case against me must be struck out.

The Plaintiff reserves the right to provide additional evidence as it becomes known.

The Plaintiff's claim for damages is €5 million euros.”

7 The statement of claim is dated 18th May, 2021. These solicitors for Everyday and Mr. Tyrell entered an appearance on 13th October, 2021. The statement of claim was delivered in the current case, though it is undated. Again, it is important to set out the statement of claim in full.

“The Plaintiff, Anthony Mullins is a race horse trainer who resides at Wateree Stud, Gowran, Co. Kilkenny.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration from the Honourable Court that his constitutional right under Article 40.1 of the Constitution has been denied due to the fact that the plaintiff has been the victim of court order No. 2021/547P. The plaintiff is aware of the Supreme Court case law No. 334/2007 where the Supreme Court validated the fact that the DPP failed to comply with the High Court order No. 2006/114P. That case law was not published on Courts.ie, denying the plaintiff's right to access that case law.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration from the Honourable Court that the plaintiff is a victim of court summons No. 2021/547P which is confirmed by high court constitutional case law No. 2018/9410P along with Article 40.1 of the Constitution. Like the ex-Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan and the ex-Attorney General, Seamus Woulfe, the plaintiff is immune to court summons. That equality is guaranteed under Article 40.1 of the Constitution and the summons against the plaintiff should have been struck out.

All of the defendants are aware that there is a pending high court constitutional case No. 2019/6501P which challenges all court summons and court orders as being repugnant to the constitution under Article 40.1.

Due to the above constitutional crisis the defendants are aware that all action in relation to court orders against the plaintiff should have been suspended and that there can not be any interference with the plaintiff's property.

The defendants are aware that since September 2019, the Chief State Solicitor has failed to provide a defence in...