Horgan v. Murray [1999] IEHC 65 (17th December, 1999)

Horgan v. Murray [1999] IEHC 65 (17th December, 1999)

There is no factual or legal basis for a partnership existing independently of the company; all claims arise from the parties' relationship as shareholders, and the Plaintiff has not pleaded or established an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. The claim for defamation does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The proceedings are an abuse of process as the issues can be addressed in the existing oppression and wrongful dismissal proceedings.

Citation
[1999] IEHC 65
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Strike Out Pleadings
Outcome
Plaintiff's Statement of Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Rule in Foss V Harbottle, Partnership Vs Company Structure, Abuse of Process, Defamation, Oppression Under Companies Act, Wrongful Dismissal
Company Law Partnership Law Civil Procedure Rule in Foss V Harbottle Partnership Vs Company Structure Abuse of Process Defamation Oppression Under Companies Act +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion to Strike Out Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed independently of the company
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the rule in Foss v Harbottle
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action for defamation

Ratio Decidendi

There is no factual or legal basis for a partnership existing independently of the company; all claims arise from the parties' relationship as shareholders, and the Plaintiff has not pleaded or established an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. The claim for defamation does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The proceedings are an abuse of process as the issues can be addressed in the existing oppression and wrongful dismissal proceedings.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Statement of Claim struck out

Orders

  • Order striking out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim for defamation as disclosing no reasonable cause of action
  • Order striking out the balance of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim as an abuse of process