The Court of Appeal has dismissed John O’Connor’s appeals against High Court orders concerning three sets of proceedings arising from his dealings with the Legal Aid Board. The court upheld the dismissal of his 2019/5432P claims against the State defendants and the consolidation of his other non-defamation claims. His defamation claim against the Board remains separate.
In a judgment delivered on 6 October 2022, Ms Justice Faherty said section 7(3) of the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 prevented the Minister from exercising power or control over the Board in an individual case. The pleaded claims against the State defendants, including vicarious liability for the Board’s alleged acts and alleged direct negligence by the Minister, therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action, she concluded.
The court also upheld the finding that continuing the 5432P proceedings against the State defendants would confer no benefit on Mr O’Connor because any damages awarded on his claims could be recovered from the Board. The appeal court stressed that its decision did not determine the merits of the claims against the Board, which remain to be decided. It also found that the pleaded case did not show a breach of the State defendants’ obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act 2003.
The underlying claims include allegations that the Board defamed Mr O’Connor in correspondence and an internal memorandum, mishandled legal aid applications and certificates, and breached statutory, contractual and constitutional duties. The judgment records those as his claims; the appeal did not resolve them.
The High Court had ordered that the non-defamation claims in proceedings 2019/5432P be combined with claims in proceedings 2018/4595P and 2019/5431P under the 2018/4595P record. The Court of Appeal found sufficient overlap in the claims, which arose from Mr O’Connor’s dealings with the Board, and said consolidation would save court time and expense without causing injustice. The defamation claim remains in 2019/5432P, preserving the separate route for that claim, including the jury trial right recognised by the High Court.
The consolidated statement of claim must include the claims against the Board from 2018/4595P, the non-defamation claims against the Board from 2019/5432P, and any further claims Mr O’Connor pursues in 2019/5431P. The State defendants were not parties to the consolidated 2018/4595P proceedings, and claims against them from 2019/5432P were not to be carried over. The Court of Appeal noted that the State defendants reserved their position on a possible further dismissal application concerning claims against them in 2019/5431P.
Each reconstituted statement of claim—in the consolidated proceedings and the separate defamation proceedings—is subject to a 5,000-word limit. The appeal court also dismissed Mr O’Connor’s appeals concerning the refusal of his motions for a preliminary issue and judgment in default against the Board. It proposed that the defendants receive their costs, subject to any party seeking a different costs order within 21 days of electronic delivery of the judgment.