Moyne v Todd & Ors (Approved) [2023] IEHC 237 (05 May 2023)

Moyne v Todd & Ors (Approved) [2023] IEHC 237 (05 May 2023)

The plaintiff's claim is bound to fail because all statements complained of were made during judicial proceedings and are protected by absolute privilege under section 17(2)(g) of the Defamation Act 2009. Even if the statements were untrue, malicious, or irrelevant, absolute privilege is a complete defence and cannot be overridden by other statutes or constitutional arguments. The proceedings are vexatious, an abuse of process, and must be struck out.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 237
Parties
Plaintiff: Alan Moyne; Defendant: Sam Todd; Defendant: Eugene F Collins Solicitors; Defendant: Paul Dempsey; Defendant: Abigail Butler; Defendant: Mark Walsh; Defendant: Ailish Colgan; Defendant: Karl Smith; Defendant: Patrick Mabry; Defendant: Steve Rodgers
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Plenary Summons / Motion to Strike Out Prior to Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's proceedings struck out in full as vexatious, abuse of process, and bound to fail.
Legal Topics
Absolute Privilege, Strike Out Application, Isaac Wunder Order, Abuse of Process
Defamation Civil Procedure Absolute Privilege Strike Out Application Isaac Wunder Order Abuse of Process

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Moyne

Plaintiff

Sam Todd

Defendant

Eugene F Collins Solicitors

Defendant

Paul Dempsey

Defendant

Abigail Butler

Defendant

Mark Walsh

Defendant

Ailish Colgan

Defendant

Karl Smith

Defendant

Patrick Mabry

Defendant

Steve Rodgers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Summons / Motion to Strike Out Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for defamation and related reliefs can survive the defence of absolute privilege
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are vexatious, frivolous, or an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether an Isaac Wunder order should be made against the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim is bound to fail because all statements complained of were made during judicial proceedings and are protected by absolute privilege under section 17(2)(g) of the Defamation Act 2009. Even if the statements were untrue, malicious, or irrelevant, absolute privilege is a complete defence and cannot be overridden by other statutes or constitutional arguments. The proceedings are vexatious, an abuse of process, and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's proceedings struck out in full as vexatious, abuse of process, and bound to fail.

Orders

  • Proceedings struck out
  • No Isaac Wunder order made at this time