The Court of Appeal has dismissed Geraldine Scanlan’s appeal against the striking out of her 2019 proceedings against lawyers, Grant Thornton, the State and the Data Protection Commissioner. The court held that the claims were bound to fail and that the case was an abuse of process.
The appeal concerned a High Court judgment and orders made by Butler J. in December 2021 and January 2022. The High Court struck out the claims against all defendants other than retired judge Paul Gilligan, whose case was dismissed by consent and was not appealed. It also dismissed Scanlan’s motions to transfer the case to the jury list and to join two people as notice parties, and awarded costs to the second to tenth defendants.
The underlying dispute arose from a 2015 case brought by Grant Thornton after a data access request. A CD sent to Scanlan contained her personal information, along with confidential information about third parties and Grant Thornton. Grant Thornton sought orders preventing disclosure and requiring the confidential material to be returned. Those proceedings, including Scanlan’s counterclaim, had not yet been tried when the appeal was heard.
Scanlan’s 2019 case challenged the conduct of the 2015 proceedings and argued, among other things, that data protection issues belonged exclusively before the Commissioner. The Court of Appeal said earlier rulings on jurisdiction and the refusal to join the Commissioner and State parties could not be relitigated. It also upheld the High Court’s conclusions that the opposing lawyers owed Scanlan no duty of care, statements made in court proceedings were protected by absolute privilege, and the Commissioner’s alleged delay did not provide a basis for a tort claim in the plenary proceedings. The court stressed that it was not deciding the outcome of the still-pending 2015 case.
The Court of Appeal also upheld an Isaac Wunder order requiring Scanlan to obtain prior High Court leave before issuing further proceedings against specified lawyers and legal representatives connected with Grant Thornton. It found the restriction proportionate, noting the history of repeated proceedings and that Scanlan had issued a separate 2022 case without leave. The appeal was dismissed. The court proposed that all respondents receive their appeal costs, subject to adjudication if the parties could not agree; parties had 21 days to seek a different costs order.