The Court of Appeal has allowed a man to amend his claim against a garda to plead that his September 2009 arrest was unlawful and seek damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The court dismissed his appeal against the striking out of his claim against the Health Service Executive (HSE).
In a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 9 February 2018, the court considered appeals from two High Court orders dismissing claims against the second and third defendants. The underlying civil proceedings also named the man’s estranged wife and daughter. The case concerned allegations of sexual assault made against him; the judgment records those as allegations, not findings.
The garda’s 2016 motion sought to strike out the claim because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was bound to fail. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court should have considered whether the statement of claim could be amended. The man’s pleadings and affidavit indicated that he wished to claim the garda had no reasonable cause to suspect him when he was arrested on 15 September 2009.
The appeal court said that, if properly pleaded, a claim for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment would disclose a cause of action recognised by law. It stressed that this did not mean the claim was likely to succeed. The court did not decide whether the arrest was lawful or whether the garda was liable.
The judgment said the material available to the garda when he made the arrest was not before the High Court. Whether it provided reasonable grounds for suspicion would require evidence and assessment at trial, so the claim could not be ruled bound to fail on the material then available. The Court of Appeal vacated the High Court order of 13 June 2016 and permitted the amendment. It left the time for filing the amended claim to be decided after hearing the parties.
The HSE appeal had a different result. The only identifiable substantive complaint against it was that a 28-month investigation, from November 2007 to March 2010, contributed to the man losing his parental connection with his daughter. The Court of Appeal concluded that the pleaded facts did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the HSE and dismissed that appeal. It did not need to consider the HSE’s alternative application under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The court also criticised the brevity of the High Court’s reasons, while finding that this alone did not justify allowing the HSE appeal. It urged the man to obtain professional legal advice before amending and pursuing his proceedings.