The High Court has ruled that Patrick McGreal must pay court fees in one set of proceedings but is exempt from fees in a separate claim alleging unlawful arrest and detention.
In a judgment delivered on 7 July 2025, Mr Justice Cregan considered whether either case fell within the fee exemption for proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution. The decision concerned fees only; the judge said he was not deciding whether the claims themselves would succeed.
The first case names Brídín Concannon and Maria Browne as defendants. It arises from Mr McGreal’s challenge to how an election civil bill and a motion for judgment in default of appearance were handled in the Westmeath Circuit Court. He alleges procedural and constitutional breaches and seeks €5 million in damages. The judge concluded that the case did not concern deprivation of personal liberty and was not covered by the exemption. Mr McGreal must pay the applicable fees in those proceedings.
The second case names Courts Service staff, Garda members and the Garda Commissioner among the defendants. Mr McGreal alleges that he was unlawfully arrested and detained after a dispute over filing court documents, and seeks damages and declarations. The defendants deny wrongdoing. The judge held that the claim’s allegations of wrongful detention and deprivation of liberty brought it within Article 40.4 for fee purposes, even though it was not a habeas corpus application and Mr McGreal was no longer detained. The second case is therefore exempt from court fees.
The judge said an earlier order allowing both cases to proceed without fees had been made on an ex parte basis, before the defendants had an opportunity to respond. The later hearing considered the fee question with submissions from both sides. He also refused a 4 July application by Mr McGreal to file additional submissions, citing the time already allowed, fairness to the defendants and the fact that the arguments had been considered.
The judgment records that separate disputes about the defendants’ appearances and legal representation had not been decided in this fee ruling. The court’s decision was confined to which proceedings qualified for the statutory fee exemption.