The Court of Appeal has dismissed Dolores Mannion’s appeal against an order striking out two sets of proceedings against the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, the Attorney General and Ireland. The order did not strike out her claims against the Legal Aid Board, which was not a respondent to the appeal.
The proceedings, begun in 2010 and 2013, followed an unsuccessful 2006 judicial review concerning the Legal Aid Board’s provision of civil legal aid. In that earlier case, the High Court refused relief, including a request for a solicitor in private practice rather than a Board-employed solicitor. The Supreme Court dismissed Mannion’s appeal.
The State respondents applied to strike out the later claims on the basis that they were bound to fail and were frivolous and vexatious. They argued that the issues had already been determined in the 2006 proceedings. The High Court granted the application in June 2017, relying on the rules against frivolous and vexatious proceedings, res judicata and the rule in Henderson v. Henderson.
On appeal, Mannion argued that the later cases raised constitutional issues not decided in 2006, and relied on a passage from the Supreme Court appeal indicating that the constitutionality of the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 had not been considered. The Court of Appeal said that passage referred to the Supreme Court sitting with three judges rather than the five judges required to determine a constitutional challenge; it did not mean the High Court was unable to consider such a challenge.
The appeal court accepted that the later statements of claim recited events after 2006, but found those events did not disclose a fresh cause of action against the State respondents. It found no error in the High Court’s conclusion that the claims had no prospect of success, had already been determined, or could have been raised in the earlier proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.