The Court of Appeal has dismissed four appeals by John Cronin against the striking out of proceedings he brought against public officials over a dispute linked to dredging work at Dingle Harbour and other matters. The court said the proceedings were an abuse of process. It gave a provisional view that Cronin should pay the respondents’ costs but allowed him to contest that by written submissions.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Charles Meenan on 26 March 2024, concerned appeals from a High Court judgment by Ms Justice Phelan. The proceedings named Barry Cowen, Micheál Martin, Helen McEntee, Paul Gallagher and Drew Harris. The High Court had granted the respondents’ applications to strike out the cases, but did not make an order restricting Cronin from bringing further proceedings, known as an Isaac Wunder order.
The dispute began with dredging work undertaken around 1999 by J & J City Ltd, a company directed by Cronin and his brother. The company was subcontracted by Irishenco Construction Limited for extension works at the Dingle pier. The judgment says the company was contracted to dredge about 8,500 cubic metres, while it claimed it had dredged about 14,500 cubic metres. A dispute over payment followed. Earlier proceedings brought by the company against Irishenco ended before trial.
Cronin then brought claims in his own name. He alleged that public bodies and officials had failed him in relation to the payment dispute and its consequences. His claims also addressed family law proceedings after the breakdown of his marriage, including his allegation that he was assaulted while imprisoned for contempt of court. In another case, he alleged that Gardaí failed to investigate his complaint about the High Court Central Office. These were allegations in Cronin’s pleadings, not findings made in this appeal.
The Court of Appeal said the claims arose from a contract to which Cronin was not a party. It agreed with the High Court that he had not identified a duty of care or statutory duty owed to him by the respondents. It also held that the personal proceedings could not be maintained as, in effect, a continuation of the earlier company proceedings. The court found no clear proposed amendment that could rescue the claims.
The court dismissed the appeals. It said respondents could file written submissions on costs if Cronin contested the provisional costs order within 14 days; respondents could reply within 14 days after that. The judgment does not record a final costs determination.