Crowley v Ireland & Ors (Approved) [2023] IECA 247 (13 October 2023)

Crowley v Ireland & Ors (Approved) [2023] IECA 247 (13 October 2023)

The appeal was dismissed because there was no evidence of malice in the prosecution by Garda Caulfield and Inspector Phibbs, no actionable misrepresentation or conspiracy by Ms. Buckley or Ivor Fitzpatrick, no duty of care owed by solicitors to Mr. Crowley, and absolute privilege attached to evidence given to court. The claims were frivolous, vexatious, and had no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2023] IECA 247
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Brian Crowley; Defendant/respondent: Ireland; Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General; Defendant/respondent: The County Registrar of Wicklow; Defendant/respondent: The Garda Commissioner; Defendant/respondent: Andrew Brady; Defendant/respondent: Alan Caulfield; Defendant/respondent: James Phibbs; Defendant/respondent: Bank of Scotland plc; Defendant/respondent: Clodagh Buckley; Defendant/respondent: Ivor Fitzpatrick Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: Start Mortgages DAC; Defendant/respondent: Elaine de Courcey; Defendant/respondent: The Lord Advocate of Scotland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Misrepresentation, Negligence, Conspiracy, Solicitor's Duty, Privilege, Mortgage Possession, Court Order Validity
Civil Procedure Tort Law Property Law Malicious Prosecution Misrepresentation Negligence Conspiracy Solicitor's Duty +3 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Crowley

Plaintiff/appellant

Ireland

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

The County Registrar of Wicklow

Defendant/respondent

The Garda Commissioner

Defendant/respondent

Andrew Brady

Defendant/respondent

Alan Caulfield

Defendant/respondent

James Phibbs

Defendant/respondent

Bank of Scotland plc

Defendant/respondent

Clodagh Buckley

Defendant/respondent

Ivor Fitzpatrick Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Start Mortgages DAC

Defendant/respondent

Elaine de Courcey

Defendant/respondent

The Lord Advocate of Scotland

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of claims against Garda Caulfield, Inspector Phibbs, Ms. Buckley, and Ivor Fitzpatrick was correct
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence of malice in the prosecution of Mr. Crowley
  3. 3 Whether solicitors owed a duty of care to Mr. Crowley

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because there was no evidence of malice in the prosecution by Garda Caulfield and Inspector Phibbs, no actionable misrepresentation or conspiracy by Ms. Buckley or Ivor Fitzpatrick, no duty of care owed by solicitors to Mr. Crowley, and absolute privilege attached to evidence given to court. The claims were frivolous, vexatious, and had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents provisionally entitled to costs; appellant may file written submissions within fourteen days if contending for any other order; respondents may reply within fourteen days.