The High Court has refused Niall Murphy’s application to avoid court fees for a proposed action over an HSE report into the care of his son, ruling that the case does not fall within the constitutional exemption he relied on.
In an ex tempore judgment given on 6 February 2025, Mr Justice Cregan said Murphy must pay the fees if he wishes to proceed with the intended action. The application concerned fees for a proposed plenary summons and for a notice of motion and grounding affidavit. The judgment notes that Murphy had apparently issued a separate plenary summons in other proceedings and paid the fee for that document.
Murphy alleges that the HSE report, referred to in the judgment as the “Tennant Report”, contained inaccuracies, omissions and procedural flaws, and that its author had a conflict of interest. He says it breached fair procedures and caused significant distress, harm and damage to his family. He seeks €60 million in damages from the defendants. These are allegations described in the judgment, not findings made in this fee application.
Murphy relied on an exemption in the court-fees regulations for proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution, which concerns personal liberty and includes the habeas corpus procedure. Justice Cregan said the proposed action was, in substance, about the report and had nothing to do with personal liberty or proceedings under Article 40.4. Merely referring to Article 40.4 in the proposed summons could not bring the case within the exemption, he said.
The judge considered an earlier decision by Mr Justice Humphreys in McGreal v Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage of Ireland (No. 2). He also explained that an earlier fee exemption he had granted to an intended plaintiff in a different case involving alleged detention had been made at an ex parte stage and on a prima facie basis. That earlier order was subject to the intended defendants’ right to respond later; it did not determine Murphy’s application.
Justice Cregan concluded that the exemption did not apply to Murphy’s intended action and that the court fees were due. The judgment did not decide the merits of the proposed claim or make findings on Murphy’s allegations about the report.