Judgment: 2009-07-07 · Court archive

High Court strikes out second McHugh case as abuse of process

The court found the 2008 proceedings duplicated an earlier case and were issued to get around a refusal to add three individuals as defendants. It struck out the proceedings while the 2005 case remained in being.

High Court · [2009] IEHC 340

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Maura McHugh
  • Lisa McHugh (Plaintiff)
  • Allied Irish Banks plc (Defendant)
  • Mary Bryne
  • Ray Dolan
  • Pat Enright (Defendant)
What

The court found the 2008 proceedings duplicated an earlier case and were issued to get around a refusal to add three individuals as defendants. It struck out the proceedings while the 2005 case remained in being.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court struck out proceedings brought by Maura McHugh and Lisa McHugh against Allied Irish Banks plc and three individuals, finding that the case duplicated an earlier action and was brought to circumvent a decision refusing to add those individuals as defendants.

The High Court struck out proceedings brought by Maura McHugh and Lisa McHugh against Allied Irish Banks plc and three individuals, finding that the case duplicated an earlier action and was brought to circumvent a decision refusing to add those individuals as defendants.

Ms Justice Dunne delivered the judgment on 7 July 2009. The application was made by the bank, the first named defendant, which sought dismissal of the 2008 proceedings as an abuse of process. It also sought to restrain further proceedings concerning the same cause of action until the earlier case was determined or discontinued.

The earlier proceedings, record number 4057P/2005, were brought against the bank. In May 2007, the Master of the High Court refused an application to add Mary Bryne, Ray Dolan and Pat Enright as co-defendants. An appeal to the High Court did not result in their addition.

In an August 2008 letter, Maura McHugh acknowledged that the new case was a replication of the earlier claim. She said she had issued it because she needed to add the three individuals. During the hearing, she maintained that she wanted to pursue the 2008 case while leaving the 2005 proceedings in place. The judgment records that she was dissatisfied with earlier decisions and alleged fraud and deceit by the individuals; those were her allegations, not findings by the court.

The judge said that pursuing two sets of proceedings over the same or substantially the same causes of action could be oppressive and vexatious, imposing unnecessary costs without providing an additional remedy. She found that the stated purpose of the 2008 case was to get around the earlier refusal to add the individuals, while retaining both sets of proceedings.

The court struck out the 2008 proceedings as an abuse of process. It did not decide whether a second case might be abusive if the earlier action had first been discontinued, and expressly left that question open. The judgment does not state that the 2005 proceedings were struck out; the bank’s application concerned the 2008 case.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review