The High Court has dismissed William Mulrooney’s negligence claim against Forensic Science Northern Ireland, ruling that the proceedings were an abuse of process because their true substance was to reopen a settled dispute over an allegedly altered lease.
Mr Justice Paul Coffey delivered the judgment on 20 February 2018. The application was made by the second defendant, Forensic Science Northern Ireland, under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. It argued that the claim was bound to fail and was an abuse of process.
The dispute stems from a 1999 lease between John Mulrooney and Edward Malone. In proceedings brought by Mr Malone in 2002, the Circuit Court found that the lease was for five years and held the Mulrooneys liable for sums due in its fourth and fifth years. The Mulrooneys had argued that a three-year term in the original document was later altered. They settled their claims and appeals in 2005 for €13,500, inclusive of costs.
Subsequent proceedings brought by William Mulrooney and his father were dismissed or settled. In 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed John Mulrooney’s appeal, holding that the settlement meant he could no longer litigate the allegation that the lease had been unlawfully altered. In 2017, a separate claim by William Mulrooney against State defendants was dismissed as an abuse of process or as bound to fail; the court also imposed an order requiring him to obtain leave before bringing specified further proceedings.
The current claim concerned a 2010 examination of the lease by Brian Craythorne, a questioned document examiner at the Northern Ireland agency. His report said the evidence supported the view that the figure “5” and the date “2004” had not been altered. William Mulrooney alleged that the examination was negligent and had caused irreparable loss, including reputational damage. He argued that a different finding might have allowed later proceedings to succeed and enabled him to reopen litigation against Malone and others. No documents substantiating his claimed loss had been provided, the judgment said.
The plaintiff argued that the Supreme Court’s decision did not apply to his claim against the agency because it had not been party to the 2005 settlements. Justice Coffey rejected that argument, saying the damages claim was founded on the asserted loss of an opportunity to reopen the earlier litigation. He also noted the Supreme Court’s reasoning that forensic evidence available through reasonable diligence before the settlement could not later be used to relitigate the same allegation.
The court dismissed the claim against Forensic Science Northern Ireland as an abuse of process. The judgment’s order addressed that claim; it did not make a new finding on whether the lease had been altered or whether the 2010 examination was negligent.