Morris v Marine Hotel (Sutton) Ltd & Ors [2019] IECA 85 (22 March 2019)

Morris v Marine Hotel (Sutton) Ltd & Ors [2019] IECA 85 (22 March 2019)

The appellant's proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious. The orders for costs and instalment orders were valid, the appellant had engaged with the process, and the misdescription of counsel did not annul liability. There is no requirement that a defence be delivered before a motion to strike out is brought. The appeal was dismissed as the High Court was correct to strike out the proceedings.

Citation
[2019] IECA 85
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Christian Morris; Defendant/respondent: Marine Hotel (Sutton) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Grand Hotel Malahide Limited; Defendant/respondent: Aloysius Ryan; Defendant/respondent: Matthew Ryan Junior; Defendant/respondent: Irene Wyse; Defendant/respondent: Paula McCorry
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Inherent Jurisdiction, Order 19 Rule 28, Costs Taxation, Collateral Attack on Orders
Civil Procedure Striking Out Proceedings Abuse of Process Inherent Jurisdiction Order 19 Rule 28 Costs Taxation Collateral Attack on Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christian Morris

Plaintiff/appellant

Marine Hotel (Sutton) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Grand Hotel Malahide Limited

Defendant/respondent

Aloysius Ryan

Defendant/respondent

Matthew Ryan Junior

Defendant/respondent

Irene Wyse

Defendant/respondent

Paula McCorry

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to strike out the appellant's proceedings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as frivolous and vexatious
  2. 2 Whether a defence must be delivered before a motion to strike out can be entertained
  3. 3 Whether delay or laches by the respondents precluded the application to strike out

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious. The orders for costs and instalment orders were valid, the appellant had engaged with the process, and the misdescription of counsel did not annul liability. There is no requirement that a defence be delivered before a motion to strike out is brought. The appeal was dismissed as the High Court was correct to strike out the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order striking out proceedings affirmed
  • Proceedings dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as frivolous and vexatious