The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Kevin and Karen Tracey’s High Court proceedings, finding that they repeated issues already before the Circuit Court. It also narrowed an order restricting the couple from bringing further proceedings: they may not relitigate those issues elsewhere without leave of the President of the High Court.
The appeals concerned orders made by the High Court on 23 July 2012. The High Court had dismissed claims against the auctioneers and other defendants as frivolous and vexatious, an abuse of process, or as disclosing no cause of action. It also made an Isaac Wunder order requiring prior leave before the Traceys could bring any proceedings against the respondents.
The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 30 July 2019, stressed that the Traceys’ allegations about a 2004 property purchase and later court hearings were unproved and contested. The couple alleged they had been deceived into paying €14,500 for land they believed was already included in their purchase, and complained of procedural misconduct in subsequent Circuit Court proceedings. The Court said those allegations were not the issue it had to decide on these appeals.
The Court reviewed the Circuit Court orders and transcript. It concluded that the full trial had not taken place on 3 November 2009, as Kevin Tracey maintained. The orders and transcript showed that the hearing concerned discovery and that the action was adjourned. Three Circuit Court orders dated 16 March 2010 recorded that the plaintiffs were absent despite proper notice; those orders included dismissal of their action for failure to comply with a discovery order.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court claim substantially duplicated the Circuit Court case. It also found that allegations of misconduct against the State respondents were unsupported and that no cause of action against them had been established. The Court said any rights concerning the property dispute lay within the Circuit Court proceedings.
The Court affirmed the High Court orders with one exception. It rejected the general restriction on proceedings against the respondents, but ordered that the Traceys could not seek to relitigate issues raised in the Circuit Court civil bill or the High Court claim in any later proceedings without leave of the President of the High Court. The Circuit Court orders of 16 March 2010 remained valid.