Moram v Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Ireland & Ors [2019] IECA 90 (28 March 2019)

Moram v Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Ireland & Ors [2019] IECA 90 (28 March 2019)

The 2016 proceedings did not raise a new cause of action but were a continuation or exacerbation of previously litigated claims, all of which were statute barred and/or res judicata. The proceedings were an abuse of process and vexatious. The High Court was correct to strike out the claim and to grant an Isaac Wunder order restraining further litigation without leave of court.

Citation
[2019] IECA 90
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ruth Moram; Defendant/respondent: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Ireland; Defendant/respondent: Andrew Beeston; Defendant/respondent: Peter Van Benthem; Defendant/respondent: Martyn Bell
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Statute of Limitations, Personal Injury, Ecclesiastical Law, Vexatious Litigation, Isaac Wunder Order
Civil Procedure Tort Law Religious Law Abuse of Process Res Judicata Statute of Limitations Personal Injury Ecclesiastical Law +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Moram

Plaintiff/appellant

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Ireland

Defendant/respondent

Andrew Beeston

Defendant/respondent

Peter Van Benthem

Defendant/respondent

Martyn Bell

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2016 proceedings raised a new cause of action not previously litigated
  2. 2 Whether the claim was statute barred
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings were an abuse of process or vexatious

Ratio Decidendi

The 2016 proceedings did not raise a new cause of action but were a continuation or exacerbation of previously litigated claims, all of which were statute barred and/or res judicata. The proceedings were an abuse of process and vexatious. The High Court was correct to strike out the claim and to grant an Isaac Wunder order restraining further litigation without leave of court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Proceedings struck out as statute barred and abuse of process
  • Isaac Wunder order restraining appellant from instituting further proceedings against respondents without prior leave of the High Court