Cunningham v Galvin & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 372 (21 June 2024)

Cunningham v Galvin & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 372 (21 June 2024)

The plaintiff's action is struck out as an abuse of process; all central issues regarding ownership and validity of the forfeiture order were previously litigated and determined in judicial review proceedings and affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff is precluded from re-litigating these matters, which could and should have been raised earlier. The claim is res judicata and falls foul of the rule in Henderson v Henderson.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 372
Parties
Plaintiff: Ted Cunningham; Defendant: Barry Galvin; Defendant: Anthony Thomas Quilter; Defendant: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Defendant: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: The Minister for Justice and Equality; Defendant: Ireland; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Plenary Action / Strike Out Application
Outcome
Action struck out as abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Misfeasance in Public Office, Conversion, Forfeiture, Breach of Constitutional Rights
Civil Procedure Criminal Law Constitutional Law Abuse of Process Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Misfeasance in Public Office Conversion +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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ted Cunningham

Plaintiff

Barry Galvin

Defendant

Anthony Thomas Quilter

Defendant

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Defendant

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant

Ireland

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Action / Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is res judicata and/or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson
  3. 3 Whether the claim discloses a cause of action or is frivolous, vexatious, or bound to fail

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's action is struck out as an abuse of process; all central issues regarding ownership and validity of the forfeiture order were previously litigated and determined in judicial review proceedings and affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff is precluded from re-litigating these matters, which could and should have been raised earlier. The claim is res judicata and falls foul of the rule in Henderson v Henderson.

Court Disposition

Action struck out as abuse of process

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim struck out
  • No further relief granted