Carroll v. Ryan [2003] IESC 1 (21 January 2003)

Carroll v. Ryan [2003] IESC 1 (21 January 2003)

The appellant was precluded from raising the Competition Act and EEC Treaty claims because he had knowledge of these claims since at least 1996 and deliberately chose not to raise them in earlier proceedings. His repeated attempts to litigate the same issues in different forums constituted an abuse of process under the Henderson v. Henderson principle. The conduct was oppressive to the respondent and contrary to the public interest in efficient litigation.

Citation
[2003] IESC 1
Parties
Appellant: Eamon Carroll; Appellant: Mary Carroll; Respondent: Chris Ryan; Respondent: John Rogers; Respondent: The Law Society of Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders
Outcome
appeal dismissed; High Court orders affirmed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Estoppel, Solicitors' Admission, Competition Law Claims, Judicial Review
Civil Procedure Professional Regulation Competition Law Abuse of Process Res Judicata Estoppel Solicitors' Admission Competition Law Claims +1 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eamon Carroll

Appellant

Mary Carroll

Appellant

Chris Ryan

Respondent

John Rogers

Respondent

The Law Society of Ireland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was precluded from raising claims under the Competition Act and EEC Treaty due to prior proceedings (Henderson v. Henderson principle)
  2. 2 Whether the repeated litigation constituted an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the Law Society's actions amounted to discrimination or abuse of dominant position

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was precluded from raising the Competition Act and EEC Treaty claims because he had knowledge of these claims since at least 1996 and deliberately chose not to raise them in earlier proceedings. His repeated attempts to litigate the same issues in different forums constituted an abuse of process under the Henderson v. Henderson principle. The conduct was oppressive to the respondent and contrary to the public interest in efficient litigation.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; High Court orders affirmed

Orders

  • Order of Kelly J. striking out proceedings as abuse of process affirmed
  • Order of Morris P. striking out ground (iii) of review application as abuse of process affirmed