Hickey v Howley and Ors (Approved) [2026] IEHC 113 (09 February 2026)

Hickey v Howley and Ors (Approved) [2026] IEHC 113 (09 February 2026)

The proceedings were struck out because the plaintiff's claims were statute barred, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, had no reasonable chance of success, and were bound to fail. The plaintiff failed to file tax returns while trading, resulting in lawful assessments and enforcement steps by Revenue, which were withdrawn once compliance was achieved. The claims were vague, unparticularised, unsupported by evidence, and related to events long preceding the institution of proceedings. No credible basis existed for believing evidence could be produced at trial to support the plaintiff's assertions.

Citation
[2026] IEHC 113
Parties
Plaintiff: Val Hickey; First Named Defendant: Joseph Howley; Second Named Defendant: Minister for Justice; Third Named Defendant: Ireland; Fourth Named Defendant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort/personal Injuries) / Motion to Strike Out/dismiss Claim (interlocutory)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim struck out as against the First Named Defendant; order for costs in favour of the First Named Defendant, subject to submissions.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Statute of Limitations, Personal Injuries Assessment Board, Revenue Assessments, Procedural Defects
Civil Procedure Tort Law Personal Injuries Tax Law Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Statute of Limitations Personal Injuries Assessment Board +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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Val Hickey

Plaintiff

Joseph Howley

First Named Defendant

Minister for Justice

Second Named Defendant

Ireland

Third Named Defendant

Attorney General

Fourth Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort/personal Injuries) / Motion to Strike Out/dismiss Claim (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the claim is statute barred under relevant limitation statutes
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings amount to an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were struck out because the plaintiff's claims were statute barred, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, had no reasonable chance of success, and were bound to fail. The plaintiff failed to file tax returns while trading, resulting in lawful assessments and enforcement steps by Revenue, which were withdrawn once compliance was achieved. The claims were vague, unparticularised, unsupported by evidence, and related to events long preceding the institution of proceedings. No credible basis existed for believing evidence could be produced at trial to support the plaintiff's assertions.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim struck out as against the First Named Defendant; order for costs in favour of the First Named Defendant, subject to submissions.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's proceedings against the First Named Defendant are struck out/dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to file written submission on costs within 14 days if seeking a different order; Defendant to respond within 14 days.