The High Court has struck out 25 allegations from Stephen and Karen Costello’s civil action against the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána because the incidents were not dated even by year. The court refused the commissioner’s application to strike out claims as statute-barred, saying that issue should be decided at trial or as a preliminary issue if the relevant facts are established or agreed.
The action, begun by plenary summons on 21 December 2005, seeks damages for alleged harassment, watching and besetting, intimidation, repeated unlawful arrest of Stephen Costello and criminal slander. It also seeks a permanent injunction relating to alleged watching and besetting at the plaintiffs’ home. Those are claims in the proceedings, not findings by the court.
A consent order made on 29 December 2005 already restrains the commissioner, his servants or agents from entering the plaintiffs’ home pending trial or further order, except under warrant or at a household member’s request.
The plaintiffs’ statement of claim alleged 32 instances of wrongful behaviour over the preceding ten years and 14 further instances said to have intensified during 2005. The commissioner’s defence argued that some allegations were too vague and that claims relating to incidents before specified limitation dates were statute-barred. The dates cited were 22 December 1999 for claims generally and 22 December 2002 for slander claims.
After the commissioner applied to strike out parts of the pleading, the court directed the plaintiffs to provide further particulars by 20 July 2007 and adjourned the application. The plaintiffs supplied some further details.
In her judgment delivered on 3 October 2007, Miss Justice Laffoy said the limitation defence was a matter for trial or a preliminary issue under the court rules, where relevant facts were established or agreed. She therefore refused the application to strike out allegations on that ground.
The court separately considered whether the pleading was sufficiently clear for a fair trial. It struck out subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (xiii), (xiv), (xvi), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx), (xxi), (xxii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxviii), (xxix), (xxx), (xxxi) and (xxxii) of paragraph 6 because no incident date had been given even by reference to a year.
The remaining incidents in paragraph 6 were sufficiently particularised to stand, unless the plaintiffs consented to some being struck out. The judgment did not decide whether the alleged conduct occurred or whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or a permanent injunction.