The High Court has dismissed John O’Connor’s claim against the State defendants in proceedings arising from his dealings with the Legal Aid Board, finding that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was bound to fail.
Mr Justice Liam Kennedy’s judgment, delivered on 18 September 2024, concerned only the claim against the second, third and fourth defendants: the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General. The judgment did not determine the claims against the Legal Aid Board. Those claims were the subject of separate proceedings in the wider litigation.
O’Connor’s pleadings alleged failures by the Board and solicitors it appointed in handling legal aid applications and related litigation. His case against the State defendants rested on alleged vicarious liability for the Board’s acts or omissions, along with allegations concerning the Minister’s response to reported non-compliance with a settlement in earlier judicial review proceedings.
The State defendants applied under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts to dismiss the claim. They argued that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was bound to fail or an abuse of process. O’Connor opposed the application, including on the basis that the consolidation of related proceedings prevented the State defendants from seeking dismissal.
Kennedy rejected that procedural argument. He said no statement of claim had been delivered in these proceedings when consolidation was ordered, so the State defendants had no basis then to assess whether the claim should be struck out. The consolidation order did not prevent a later application to dismiss.
The judge said he had considered whether the pleadings could be amended to set out a viable claim, but O’Connor confirmed he wished to pursue the case on its existing basis. Kennedy also said he was not deciding the application on the ground of res judicata, despite the State defendants’ reliance on that doctrine.
In dismissing the claim against the State defendants, Kennedy relied on the Legal Aid Board’s status under the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 as a body capable of suing and being sued, and the Minister’s lack of control over individual cases handled by the Board. He said O’Connor could pursue any established allegations against the Board itself and that retaining the State defendants would not strengthen his case or provide a basis for relief.
The judge said the State defendants should receive their costs of the application and proceedings, with the amount to be adjudicated if not agreed. He invited written submissions on any alternative costs order or other issue within 21 days, after which he would confirm the costs order.