Murphy v Ryan (Approved) [2023] IECA 56 (16 March 2023)

Murphy v Ryan (Approved) [2023] IECA 56 (16 March 2023)

The appellant's claims were bound to fail as they were either statute barred, unsupported by expert evidence, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or were res judicata due to prior determinations by the FSO and the courts. There was no contract or fiduciary relationship between the appellant and respondent, and no evidence of actionable fraudulent misrepresentation or professional negligence. The High Court was correct to dismiss the proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] IECA 56
Parties
Appellant: Damien Murphy; Respondent: Robert Ryan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Proceedings, Res Judicata, Professional Negligence, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Defamation, Statute of Limitations, Costs
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Professional Negligence Striking Out Proceedings Res Judicata Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Fiduciary Duty Defamation +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damien Murphy

Appellant

Robert Ryan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to dismiss the appellant's proceedings as bound to fail, frivolous, and vexatious
  2. 2 Whether claims for defamation, personal injuries, breach of contract, professional negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty could be sustained against the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of res judicata applied due to prior FSO and court determinations

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claims were bound to fail as they were either statute barred, unsupported by expert evidence, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or were res judicata due to prior determinations by the FSO and the courts. There was no contract or fiduciary relationship between the appellant and respondent, and no evidence of actionable fraudulent misrepresentation or professional negligence. The High Court was correct to dismiss the proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Substantive appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal, subject to adjudication in default of agreement