Murray & Anor v Meath County Council (Approved) [2024] IEHC 658 (20 November 2024)

Murray & Anor v Meath County Council (Approved) [2024] IEHC 658 (20 November 2024)

The plaintiffs' claim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on final orders of the High Court and Supreme Court. The alleged new evidence regarding the absence of a section 47 agreement and the authority of a co-owner was already known or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 658
Parties
Plaintiff: Chris Murray; Plaintiff: Rose Murray; Defendant: Meath County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 November 2024
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Interlocutory Motions and Motion to Strike Out
Outcome
Plaintiffs' proceedings struck out as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Interlocutory relief refused.
Legal Topics
Section 160 Proceedings, Interlocutory Injunctions, Abuse of Process, Setting Aside Final Orders, Section 47 Sterilisation Agreements, Res Judicata, Fraud and Misrepresentation in Litigation
Planning and Development Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Section 160 Proceedings Interlocutory Injunctions Abuse of Process Setting Aside Final Orders Section 47 Sterilisation Agreements +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chris Murray

Plaintiff

Rose Murray

Plaintiff

Meath County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Interlocutory Motions and Motion to Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interlocutory relief restraining enforcement of previous court orders under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be struck out as frivolous, vexatious, disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or as an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether new evidence regarding the absence of a section 47 agreement and the authority of a co-owner justifies setting aside final orders of the High Court and Supreme Court

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' claim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on final orders of the High Court and Supreme Court. The alleged new evidence regarding the absence of a section 47 agreement and the authority of a co-owner was already known or immaterial, and no fraud or deliberate deceit by the defendant was pleaded or established. The legal threshold for setting aside final orders is not met. The proceedings are bound to fail and are struck out.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' proceedings struck out as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Interlocutory relief refused.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claim dismissed and struck out under the court's inherent jurisdiction and Order 19 Rule 28.
  • Application for interlocutory injunction or stay refused.