The High Court has dismissed two sets of proceedings brought by Richard O’Hara, finding that neither disclosed a reasonable cause of action and that both were an abuse of process. Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy also refused Mr O’Hara’s application for contempt orders and declined, at this stage, to restrict him from bringing further proceedings without the court’s permission.
The judgment, delivered on 28 June 2024, concerned proceedings numbered 2021/6375 P and 2023/3092 P. The first case sought €2 million and advanced Mr O’Hara’s contention that orders and pleading defaults in unrelated cases meant he was immune from court summonses and orders. The court had already dismissed his claim against Start Mortgages in that case in an earlier judgment by Mr Justice Brian O’Moore. Mr O’Hara did not appeal that decision.
Mr Justice Mulcahy dismissed the remaining claims in the first case against the State defendants and Mr O’Hara’s former wife. He said there was no basis to distinguish those claims from the one already dismissed against Start Mortgages.
The second case sought €4 million and challenged the earlier dismissal, relying on the same immunity argument and alleging that the dismissal denied Mr O’Hara’s constitutional rights. The judge said the proper route to challenge the earlier decision was an appeal, and that no basis had been identified for the High Court to exercise its exceptional power to revisit a final decision.
Mr O’Hara relied in particular on a 2022 order in separate proceedings, O’Doherty v Ireland, made after a defence had not been filed. The judgment said no evidence had been provided about the claim in that case or whether a defence was later delivered. Even assuming the cases were identical and no defence was filed, the judge said the order was procedural, not a decision on the merits, and had no precedential value on the merits of Mr O’Hara’s claims.
The court also refused Mr O’Hara’s contempt motion, which concerned solicitors’ correspondence, representation of Mr Justice O’Moore and Start Mortgages’ separate possession proceedings. The judge said there was no court order that any defendant or representative was alleged to have breached.
Two defendants sought Isaac Wunder orders, which can require prior court permission before further proceedings are brought against parties to earlier litigation. Mr Justice Mulcahy refused those applications as premature, while warning that further attempts to litigate the same baseless claims would almost certainly prompt the court’s intervention.
The judge said he would list the matter for 12 July 2024 to make final orders and deal with costs. The judgment does not state what orders on costs were ultimately made.