Carthy v Ireland & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 63 (19 February 2024)

Carthy v Ireland & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 63 (19 February 2024)

The plaintiff's claim against the applicant is unsustainable, discloses no reasonable cause of action, lacks proper particulars, and constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on previous court orders. The issues raised are res judicata and/or precluded by the rule in Henderson v Henderson. No basis exists for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 63
Parties
Plaintiff: Eamon Carthy; Defendant: Ireland and the Attorney General; Defendant: Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank; Defendant: Bank of Ireland Mortgages Bank Unlimited Company; Defendant: Fieldfisher Ireland Solicitors; Defendant: Whitney Moore Solicitors; Defendant: Brendan Robbins
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claim against applicant dismissed and struck out
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Collateral Attack, Professional Negligence, Fraud, Breach of Duty, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Property Law Constitutional Law Abuse of Process Res Judicata Collateral Attack Professional Negligence Fraud +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 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eamon Carthy

Plaintiff

Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendant

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank

Defendant

Bank of Ireland Mortgages Bank Unlimited Company

Defendant

Fieldfisher Ireland Solicitors

Defendant

Whitney Moore Solicitors

Defendant

Brendan Robbins

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the applicant is sustainable or constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings amount to a collateral attack on previous court orders
  3. 3 Whether sufficient particulars of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or breach of duty have been pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim against the applicant is unsustainable, discloses no reasonable cause of action, lacks proper particulars, and constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on previous court orders. The issues raised are res judicata and/or precluded by the rule in Henderson v Henderson. No basis exists for liability against the applicant, who acted as solicitor for the bank. The proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim against applicant dismissed and struck out

Orders

  • Order pursuant to Order 19, rule 28 RSC striking out claim as frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action
  • Order pursuant to inherent jurisdiction dismissing proceedings as abuse of process