Judgment: 2022-06-24 · Court archive

High Court clarifies Michael Butler was the sole plaintiff in proceedings

A supplemental judgment corrected references to William Butler in the principal judgment and limited any order in the case to Michael Butler.

High Court · [2022] IEHC 388

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Michael Butler (Plaintiff)
  • The Minister for Justice and Equality
  • Ireland
  • The Attorney General (Defendant)
  • William Butler
What

A supplemental judgment corrected references to William Butler in the principal judgment and limited any order in the case to Michael Butler.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 16 February 2020; 21 June 2022

    The clarification followed a hearing about costs on 21 June 2022. Defence counsel told the court that William Butler had never been joined as a party, although he was named alongside Michael Butler in the title of the amended plenary summons and in an order made by the Master of the High Court on 16 February 2020.

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The High Court has clarified that Michael Butler was the sole plaintiff in proceedings against the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General. In a supplemental judgment delivered on 24 June 2022, Ms Justice Stack said the principal judgment should be read as referring only to Michael Butler, and that any order in the proceedings would be made against him alone.

The clarification followed a hearing about costs on 21 June 2022. Defence counsel told the court that William Butler had never been joined as a party, although he was named alongside Michael Butler in the title of the amended plenary summons and in an order made by the Master of the High Court on 16 February 2020.

Justice Stack said she had relied on the amended summons when she titled and referred to the parties in her principal judgment, delivered on 4 May 2022. Defence counsel submitted that the Master’s order amended only the general indorsement of claim, not the title of the proceedings. The judge said it therefore appeared William Butler had been erroneously named as a co-plaintiff in the Master’s order, the amended summons and the principal judgment.

Michael Butler appeared in person at the 21 June hearing and confirmed that William Butler, his brother, knew nothing about the proceedings and was entirely unaware of them. The supplemental judgment records that confirmation; it does not describe William Butler as a party or make findings about the underlying claims.

Justice Stack said she had indicated at the hearing that the principal judgment should be read as referring only to Michael Butler, the sole plaintiff, and that any order would be made against him only. The supplemental judgment put that clarification in writing. It does not state the outcome of the costs hearing.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review