Kenny -v- TCD [2008] IESC 18 (10 April 2008)

Kenny -v- TCD [2008] IESC 18 (10 April 2008)

The plaintiff's amended statement of claim, even if all allegations were true, did not disclose a reasonable cause of action because the alleged fraud (concealment of a fire safety certificate application) was immaterial to the High Court's judgment on the planning permission. The facts allegedly concealed would not have affected the outcome. Therefore, the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, warranting dismissal both under Order 19 rule 28 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Citation
[2008] IESC 18
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: James Kenny; Defendants/appellants: The Provost, Fellows and Scholars of the University of Dublin, Trinity College
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Refusing to Strike Out Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; plaintiff's action dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Proceedings, Fraud on the Court, Finality of Judgments, Planning Permission, Judicial Review
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Striking Out Proceedings Fraud on the Court Finality of Judgments Planning Permission Judicial Review

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kenny

Plaintiff/respondent

The Provost, Fellows and Scholars of the University of Dublin, Trinity College

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Refusing to Strike Out Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's action to set aside a final judgment on grounds of fraud discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the alleged fraud, if proven, would have affected the impugned judgment
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's amended statement of claim, even if all allegations were true, did not disclose a reasonable cause of action because the alleged fraud (concealment of a fire safety certificate application) was immaterial to the High Court's judgment on the planning permission. The facts allegedly concealed would not have affected the outcome. Therefore, the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, warranting dismissal both under Order 19 rule 28 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; plaintiff's action dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action
  • Proceedings dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process