Cully v The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana & Ors (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 185 (02 August 2022)

Cully v The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana & Ors (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 185 (02 August 2022)

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision to withdraw the claim for malicious prosecution from the jury, finding no evidence of malice or absence of reasonable and probable cause. The exclusion of evidence regarding the District Court proceedings was within the trial judge’s discretion. The costs order, awarding the appellant 65% of his taxed costs, was justified given the significant portion of the case on which the appellant failed. The cross-appeal regarding the intentional infliction of emotional harm was not upheld, and the damages awarded by the jury were not disturbed.

Citation
[2022] IECA 185
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Oliver Cully; Defendant/respondent: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Defendant/respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant/respondent: Ireland; Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, False Imprisonment, Assault, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm, Costs, Aggravated Damages, Public Order Offences
Tort Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution False Imprisonment Assault Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Cully

Plaintiff/appellant

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Defendant/respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant/respondent

Ireland

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing the claim for malicious prosecution from the jury
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence regarding the District Court proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in his directions on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision to withdraw the claim for malicious prosecution from the jury, finding no evidence of malice or absence of reasonable and probable cause. The exclusion of evidence regarding the District Court proceedings was within the trial judge’s discretion. The costs order, awarding the appellant 65% of his taxed costs, was justified given the significant portion of the case on which the appellant failed. The cross-appeal regarding the intentional infliction of emotional harm was not upheld, and the damages awarded by the jury were not disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal of the respondents is dismissed.