The Court of Appeal has dismissed William Mulrooney’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim against Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI), affirming that the proceedings were an abuse of process.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 27 July 2020, concerned a High Court order made in March 2018. Mulrooney had alleged that an FSNI examination of a 1999 lease was negligent because, among other things, the examiner did not conduct an ESDA test and failed to note correction fluid on some pages. He claimed damages, including for reputational harm.
The lease was at the centre of earlier litigation between Mulrooney and his father, John Mulrooney, and Edward Malone. The Mulrooneys alleged that the lease term had been altered from three years to five. The Circuit Court ruled for Malone in 2005, and the appeal was settled that November, with the Mulrooneys agreeing to pay €13,500 including costs. Their related claim against auctioneers Shee & Hawe was also settled. The Supreme Court later held that the settlement meant the unlawful alteration allegation could not be litigated again.
Faherty J. said that Mulrooney’s case against FSNI was founded on the allegation that the lease had been unlawfully altered. Even if the proposed claims for misfeasance in public office or breaches of European Convention on Human Rights rights were added, they still depended on reopening that allegation. The court also rejected reliance on alleged errors in an earlier judge’s understanding of the forensic examinations: those points did not change the effect of the 2005 settlements.
Mulrooney separately argued that the settlements were induced by concealment of a failure to obtain consent required under section 12 of the Land Act 1965. The Court of Appeal said that allegation was absent from his pleadings against FSNI, was unsupported by evidence in his replying affidavit and concerned alleged conduct by other parties. It could not provide a basis for maintaining this claim against FSNI.
The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. It directed that costs would normally follow the outcome, with that order to be made 14 days after judgment unless a party applied for a different order within that period.