The Supreme Court has dismissed Robert Ewing’s appeal and upheld an order striking out his 2006 proceedings against Ireland and the Attorney General, ruling that the case was an abuse of court process and an impermissible attempt to challenge earlier court decisions.
In a judgment delivered on 11 October 2013, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the claims could not succeed, even if the matters pleaded were proved. The court upheld the High Court order on the basis of its inherent jurisdiction. It did not need to make specific findings under the procedural rules also relied on by the High Court.
Ewing’s claim concerned a land sale made by his father, William Arthur Pax Ewing, in 1982 and the litigation that followed. His father agreed to sell land in County Galway to neighbour Anthony Kelly for €35,000. Kelly was registered as owner in 1983. In later proceedings, Kelly claimed trespass and obstruction of a right of way. The Circuit Court ruled in his favour, and the High Court upheld that decision in 1997. The Supreme Court said those decisions had finally determined the issues between Kelly and the Ewing family.
Ewing brought separate High Court proceedings in 1999 seeking to reopen the dispute and alleging, among other things, undue influence, negligence and fraud. Most defendants’ applications to strike out the case succeeded in 2000; the Supreme Court dismissed Ewing’s appeal in 2001. The remaining proceedings against State defendants were struck out in 2003 after Ewing did not appear.
The present case, begun in 2006, alleged that the State had failed to provide a reasonable environment for Ewing to respond to the earlier litigation and had failed to address the injustice he claimed had occurred. He sought a government inquiry, compensation, and declarations concerning earlier judgments and the land. These were allegations and requests in his pleadings, not findings by the court.
MacMenamin J said the defendants had no power over, or duty covering, the earlier proceedings. He also said the court system’s appeal process and the principle of finality did not permit the collateral challenge Ewing sought to bring. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order striking out the proceedings.