The High Court has struck out Anthony Mullins’s claim against receiver Ken Tyrell and Everyday Finance DAC, finding that the pleadings disclosed no cause of action and were bound to fail. The court also refused two motions by Mr Mullins alleging contempt and perjury.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore delivered the judgment on 20 May 2022, after hearing three motions on 9 May. The order striking out the claim applied to the fourth and fifth defendants, Mr Tyrell and Everyday. The judge listed the matter for mention on 20 June 2022 so the parties could address costs and any other outstanding issues; the judgment did not decide those matters.
The claim arose against the background of separate proceedings brought by Mr Tyrell against Mr Mullins in 2021, seeking injunctions concerning secured properties and the receivership. The judgment records that those injunctions were refused by Mr Justice Allen after a hearing on 13 October 2021. Mr Mullins’s later claim sought declarations based on his arguments about constitutional rights and court summonses, and claimed €5 million in damages.
Mr Mullins’s first motion sought to have Mr Tyrell, Everyday and their solicitors found in contempt over a letter warning that they would seek to strike out the claim unless he discontinued it. Alternatively, he asked for the letter to be referred to An Garda Síochána or the case to be referred to the European Court of Human Rights. The judge found the letter was a restrained account of the defendants’ intended procedural steps, not contempt or a denial of Mr Mullins’s right to a court hearing. He said there was no procedure allowing him to refer the complaint to the European court and refused the motion in full.
In a second motion, Mr Mullins asked the court to direct Gardaí to investigate solicitor Richard O’Sullivan for alleged perjury in an affidavit supporting the strike-out application. The judge found no perjury: the challenged statements were Mr O’Sullivan’s honest views on the merits of the claim. He refused that motion and said it would not be proper to direct Gardaí without them being on notice of the application.
On the strike-out motion, the judge considered the pleaded case at its highest, including its allegations about investigations and constitutional breaches. He concluded that those matters did not establish a viable claim against Mr Tyrell or Everyday. Any alleged impropriety in the separate receivership proceedings, he said, should be raised in those proceedings rather than through a fresh claim. Mr Mullins did not seek to amend his pleadings.