The High Court dismissed William Mulrooney’s claim against the Garda Commissioner and other defendants over the Garda investigation of allegations that a lease had been altered. It also barred him from bringing further proceedings on the alleged lease fraud against specified past defendants and other public bodies. The court said Mulrooney could appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Eagar on 27 July 2017, concerned a defendants’ motion to dismiss Mulrooney’s claim. The defendants argued that it repeated matters already litigated and settled. They also sought an order restricting further proceedings about the lease.
Mulrooney’s claim concerned allegations that the term of a lease between Edward Malone and John Mulrooney had been changed from three years to five, and that Gardaí had not properly investigated his complaint. Mulrooney disputed that he was relitigating the earlier cases. He argued that his current claim concerned alleged negligence in the investigation, including since February 2015, and said the proceedings could be amended to include misfeasance in public office and claims under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judgment recounted earlier litigation over the lease. Malone had sued William and John Mulrooney in the Circuit Court; that case was settled after an award against them. The High Court also considered the 2011 proceedings, which included claims about the lease and its examination. The Supreme Court had rejected an appeal in that litigation, holding that the allegation of unlawful alteration had been raised in the earlier proceedings and was covered by their settlement.
The court noted that Garda document examiner Detective Garda John Leonard reported no evidence of alteration in the relevant parts of the lease in examinations in 2009 and 2015. It also recounted prior examinations by another document examiner. Those reports formed part of the history considered by the court; the judgment’s decision on the present motion rested on its conclusion that the claim raised the same issues dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Justice Eagar found that the claim was an abuse of process, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous and vexatious, and had no reasonable grounds of success or was bound to fail. He dismissed it on those grounds.
The court then made an Isaac Wunder order. It restrains Mulrooney from bringing proceedings against the current defendants, defendants against whom he had previously brought pleadings, and a list of named parties, concerning the alleged fraudulent amendment of the lease. The order also extends to other public bodies, including the Courts Service. The judgment does not state that Mulrooney had exhausted domestic remedies; it expressly notes that he remained entitled to appeal.