The High Court has struck out William and Jacqueline Bullen’s 2012 claim over disputed property boundaries, finding that the issues had already been decided and that the proceedings were an abuse of process. It also barred them from bringing further related proceedings without the court’s leave.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 12 February 2015, followed motions by the defendants to dismiss or strike out the case. The defendants included Brendan and Eileen O’Sullivan, engineer Diarmuid McCarthy, and five solicitors practising as O’Donovan Murphy and Partners. The Bullens had sought judgment against the defendants, but the court heard the dismissal motions first.
The dispute arose from land bought by the Bullens from the Linters in or around 1998. The judgment records that the original property map was incorrect and that the parties disagreed about the boundaries and later transfers. The defendants said a 1999 deed rectified the boundaries. The Bullens disputed that account and alleged, among other things, that they had been deprived of land and misled about its boundaries.
In 2005, the Bullens settled a Circuit Court case brought by the O’Sullivans and the Fearons. The consent terms included a boundary arrangement and a provision settling claims against McCarthy and O’Donovan Murphy. The Bullens later sought to challenge that settlement in High Court proceedings begun in 2004. Those proceedings were dismissed by Mr Justice Hanna in 2011. The Bullens did not appeal that order.
Justice Donnelly found that the current claims were substantially the same as those raised in the earlier High Court case. She rejected the contention that fraud had not previously been raised, noting that fraud allegations and claims of newly discovered evidence had featured in the earlier proceedings. The court also found that the Bullens had not clearly identified documents proving fraud and that the material they relied on could have been pursued with reasonable diligence in the earlier case.
The judge held that the claims were res judicata and that continuing with them would amount to an abuse of process. She also found the case objectively frivolous and vexatious, while stating that she did not consider the Bullens to have acted with an express intention to harass or oppress the defendants. The court did not determine whether the claims were statute-barred, as that issue did not need to be decided given the other rulings.
The Isaac Wunder order requires the Bullens to obtain High Court leave before bringing proceedings against any of the named defendants concerning the property purchase, boundaries, property maps, related representation by O’Donovan Murphy, the Circuit Court settlement, or fraud allegations arising from those matters. The judge expressly said she was not determining the correctness of the disputed boundary lines. She noted that the 2005 settlement represented the position on the boundaries.