Nesbitt & Anor v Swann & Ors [2022] NIMaster 8 (25 November 2022)

Nesbitt & Anor v Swann & Ors [2022] NIMaster 8 (25 November 2022)

The plaintiffs’ claim is struck out because it is an abuse of process to bring public law challenges to ministerial decisions by ordinary civil action rather than judicial review (breach of the Exclusivity Rule). Additionally, the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, as the alleged torts are either not recognised in law or are unsupported by material facts. The pleadings are also scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious, failing to meet the requirements for a valid claim.

Citation
[2022] NIMaster 8
Parties
Plaintiff: Jody Nesbitt; Plaintiff: Diana Nesbitt; First Defendant: Robin Swann; Second Defendant: Naomi Long; Third Defendant: Mike Nesbitt; Fourth Defendant: Jim Shannon
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
25 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (king’s Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim Under Order 18 Rule 19
Outcome
Action struck out in its entirety against the first and second defendants.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Judicial Review Exclusivity, Misfeasance in Public Office, Negligence, Fiduciary Duty, Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings
Civil Procedure Public Law Tort Law Strike Out Applications Judicial Review Exclusivity Misfeasance in Public Office Negligence Fiduciary Duty +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jody Nesbitt

Plaintiff

Diana Nesbitt

Plaintiff

Robin Swann

First Defendant

Naomi Long

Second Defendant

Mike Nesbitt

Third Defendant

Jim Shannon

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (king’s Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim Under Order 18 Rule 19

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs’ claim discloses any reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process due to breach of the Exclusivity Rule (public law claims brought by ordinary action rather than judicial review)
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings are scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs’ claim is struck out because it is an abuse of process to bring public law challenges to ministerial decisions by ordinary civil action rather than judicial review (breach of the Exclusivity Rule). Additionally, the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, as the alleged torts are either not recognised in law or are unsupported by material facts. The pleadings are also scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious, failing to meet the requirements for a valid claim.

Court Disposition

Action struck out in its entirety against the first and second defendants.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs’ statement of claim struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 for abuse of process, no reasonable cause of action, and being scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.
  • Application for adjournment or further amendment refused.