The Court of Appeal has refused Ruth Moram’s appeal against the striking out of her 2016 personal injury proceedings, holding that the claim repeated matters already dealt with in earlier litigation and was statute barred. It also upheld an order requiring her to obtain the President of the High Court’s permission before bringing further proceedings against the defendants.
Moram’s claim arose from a disciplinary process conducted by elders of the Killarney Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in or around 2004. She alleged that the defendants’ conduct and the concealment of internal procedures caused personal injuries. The judgment recounts that the congregation’s elders decided she should be disfellowshipped, but a review by the organisation’s branch office concluded she should not be. These are background events and allegations described in the judgment, not new findings made in this appeal.
Moram had previously brought defamation proceedings in 2011 and personal injury proceedings in 2013. The 2013 case was struck out as statute barred, and the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal in 2015. In 2016, she brought another personal injury claim, alleging, among other matters, that later discoveries about secret rules and procedures revealed fraud and caused further injury. The High Court struck out that claim in 2017 and made an Isaac Wunder order restricting further proceedings without prior leave.
The Court of Appeal considered whether the 2016 claim was a new cause of action and what effect the decisions in the 2013 proceedings had on it. It concluded that the later injuries alleged, including hydronephrosis diagnosed in 2016, amounted at most to an exacerbation of symptoms associated with the earlier claim. The court held that the 2016 proceedings did not establish a fresh cause of action and could not be used to relitigate claims already disposed of in the 2013 case.
Moram also argued that the earlier court decisions had been obtained by fraud because information about the organisation’s procedures had been withheld. The Court of Appeal said a concluded judgment must be challenged for fraud through a new action setting out the particulars, rather than by asking the court to disregard it in these proceedings. It therefore treated the earlier decisions as binding for the purposes of the appeal.
The court held that continuing the 2016 proceedings would be an abuse of process, either because the claims were covered by res judicata or because they could have been brought in the 2013 proceedings. It did not consider the respondents’ other arguments for dismissal. The appeal was refused, leaving the High Court’s strike-out and leave requirement in place. The order did not bar access to court outright: it required Moram to satisfy the President of the High Court that she should be allowed to bring any intended further proceedings.