Desmond v Moriarty [2018] IESC 34 (27 July 2018)

Desmond v Moriarty [2018] IESC 34 (27 July 2018)

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's pleadings did not allege fraud in the requisite sense of deliberate and purposeful dishonesty or knowing and intentional deceit of the court, as required by established case law. The claim was based on misleading or inaccurate evidence but did not meet the stringent threshold for setting aside a final judgment for fraud. Further, the jurisdiction to set aside a judgment for breach of fair procedures is confined to breaches by the court itself, not by a party. The High Court was correct to strike out the proceedings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being bound to fail.

Citation
[2018] IESC 34
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Dermot Desmond; Defendant/respondent: Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty (Sole Member of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Messrs Charles Haughey and Michael Lowry)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud, Fair Procedures, Abuse of Process, Tribunal of Inquiry, Finality of Judgments
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud Fair Procedures Abuse of Process Tribunal of Inquiry Finality of Judgments

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dermot Desmond

Plaintiff/appellant

Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty (Sole Member of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Messrs Charles Haughey and Michael Lowry)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the threshold for setting aside a judgment on grounds of fraud?
  2. 2 Does the jurisdiction to set aside a judgment for breach of fair procedures require the breach to arise from the conduct of the court itself?
  3. 3 Did the plaintiff's pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action for fraud or breach of fair procedures sufficient to survive a strike-out application?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's pleadings did not allege fraud in the requisite sense of deliberate and purposeful dishonesty or knowing and intentional deceit of the court, as required by established case law. The claim was based on misleading or inaccurate evidence but did not meet the stringent threshold for setting aside a final judgment for fraud. Further, the jurisdiction to set aside a judgment for breach of fair procedures is confined to breaches by the court itself, not by a party. The High Court was correct to strike out the proceedings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being bound to fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court striking out the plaintiff's claim affirmed
  • No order setting aside prior judgments