The High Court dismissed proceedings brought by John, Geraldine, Tracey and Darren Gilligan challenging the use of Proceeds of Crime Act orders against properties linked to them. Mr Justice Birmingham ruled on 20 December 2013 that the case was an abuse of process, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was vexatious.
The plaintiffs’ September 2013 plenary summons sought declarations that freezing and disposal orders made under the 1996 Act were unconstitutional and infringed their property rights. They also claimed that their rights had been interfered with without a trial and sought damages under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
The respondents, the Criminal Assets Bureau, Ireland and the Attorney General, applied to strike out the proceedings. They relied on the plaintiffs’ failure to deliver a statement of claim, alleged abuse of process and delay, and sought to have a lis pendens vacated. The plaintiffs had instead provided a ten-page document described as a “grounding statement”. The judge said it elaborated on the claim and that delay of a few weeks, by itself, would not justify dismissing the proceedings.
The dispute arose from orders made in 1996 and 1997 freezing property under the Act. After earlier procedural challenges were dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2008, the plaintiffs sought discharge or variation of the orders under section 3(3). In 2011, Mr Justice Feeney found they had not discharged their burden, apart from a partial exception for Tracey Gilligan concerning one property. He later made disposal orders for the properties, directing that Tracey receive 20 per cent of the net sale proceeds for that property. Those decisions were under appeal to the Supreme Court when Mr Justice Birmingham considered the 2013 case.
The judge said the adequacy of the earlier section 3 process had been repeatedly raised, including in prior proceedings and in the pending appeal. He accepted that the plaintiffs’ complaint about not presenting oral evidence had substance, but concluded there was a limit to how often the same issue could be litigated. He also rejected the suggestion that a constitutional challenge to section 3 was being raised for the first time, referring to claims in earlier cases.
Mr Justice Birmingham dismissed the proceedings under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. He made the orders sought in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the respondents’ notice of motion: striking out the proceedings for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action or for being vexatious, and vacating the lis pendens. He said it was unnecessary to decide whether the lis pendens should have been vacated if the proceedings had remained in existence.