The High Court has dismissed Ben (otherwise Bernard) Gilroy’s claims against Allied Irish Banks plc and five other defendants, ruling that the claims were frivolous and vexatious and had no reasonable prospect of success.
Mr Justice Hunt made the order under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The proceedings had been brought by Mr Gilroy, who represented himself. The defendants were solicitor Claire Callanan, Beauchamps Solicitors, AIB, bank employee Philip Butler, and Sarah McLaughlin and Robert Bergin, whom the judgment identifies as company secretaries of the bank.
Mr Gilroy’s pleaded case alleged that the defendants had acted without proper authority when he was joined to litigation between AIB and Seamus McQuaid, and when the bank later sought his attachment and committal. He claimed damages for, among other things, trespass, reputational harm, negligence, stress and alleged violations of his rights. The defendants applied to dismiss the case. Some also sought orders restricting future proceedings against them or Mr Gilroy’s participation in other litigation.
The judge considered the claims in the context of earlier proceedings. He relied on findings in a September 2018 judgment by Mr Justice Haughton that Callanan and Beauchamps acted on AIB’s instructions, through Butler, in seeking to join Mr Gilroy. The judge said those findings had settled the authority issue. He also noted that challenges to earlier orders had not succeeded on appeal, and concluded that Mr Gilroy could not use this case to re-litigate matters already decided, or matters that could have been raised earlier.
The judgment recounts that Mr Gilroy was found guilty of criminal contempt in the earlier proceedings on two occasions. The first followed his guilty plea; the second was determined by Mr Justice McGovern in October 2018. In each instance, the judgment says, a prison term was avoided or suspended in light of mitigation and undertakings. Mr Justice Hunt held that those contempt matters had also been finally determined and could not be litigated again in this case.
The judge rejected Mr Gilroy’s arguments about the identity and banking licence of the AIB entity he had sued, describing them as irrelevant to the dispute. He also rejected his objection to affidavits that gave the deponents’ business addresses, finding those addresses sufficient in the circumstances.
The court dismissed the claims against all six defendants under Order 19, Rule 28. Although the defendants also relied on the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, the judge said it was unnecessary to decide that ground. The dismissal order did not determine the separate requests by some defendants for restrictions on future proceedings or Mr Gilroy’s participation in litigation.