The High Court has struck out Ted Cunningham’s damages action against State defendants, finding that it amounted to an abuse of process because it sought to revisit matters addressed, or capable of being addressed, in earlier proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 12 June 2024, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley exercised the court’s inherent jurisdiction to strike out the plenary action. He listed the case for mention on 20 June to deal with ancillary matters, including costs. The judgment does not determine those matters.
Cunningham’s action concerned the seizure and forfeiture of money following his 2014 retrial and convictions on two money-laundering counts. He had pleaded guilty to those counts. The Circuit Court imposed a five-year sentence, with the balance suspended subject to conditions, and ordered the forfeiture of £2,985,680 and €45,146. The judgment records that the order was not opposed or appealed.
Cunningham later brought judicial review proceedings seeking, among other things, to challenge the seizure and forfeiture and establish ownership of the money. The High Court refused relief, finding that he had not established a basis to extend the time for his challenge or discharged the burden of establishing ownership after the forfeiture order. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
The current action sought damages for alleged misfeasance in public office, conversion and breaches of constitutional rights, among other claims. Cunningham’s counsel argued that a transcript of the 2014 hearing, unavailable during the judicial review, supported a challenge to the forfeiture process. Counsel also raised alleged failures to comply with statutory requirements and argued that information about complaints filed in US litigation should have been disclosed before the forfeiture order. The judgment notes those complaints were withdrawn and that it was not known whether their allegations had been substantiated.
Justice Bradley concluded that the new action’s claims depended in part on Cunningham’s asserted ownership of the forfeited money, an issue addressed in the earlier judicial review. He also found that complaints about the forfeiture process and other matters could have been raised in the earlier proceedings. The court therefore struck out the action as a misuse or abuse of process. The ruling was on the State defendants’ application to end the civil action; it did not make findings on every allegation in the damages claim.