The High Court struck out a challenge to the Garda vetting process, ruling that the claims could and should have been brought in earlier judicial review proceedings. The court found the later case was an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v. Henderson.
The case arose after Kilkenny County Council ranked Trevor Webster first among 15 candidates for a retained firefighter post at Urlingford Fire Station in 2009, subject to checks including Garda vetting. A disclosure sent to the council in February 2010 listed seven charges against him, each recorded as resulting in a non-conviction. The council then decided not to proceed with his appointment.
Webster brought judicial review proceedings against the council and State respondents. Those proceedings settled in February 2011. The settlement provided for an independent investigation of his application, payment of his legal costs by the State respondents, and a full and final settlement of claims connected with the council’s 2010 decision and the vetting disclosures made in that matter. The independent investigation upheld the council’s decision, which Webster acknowledged was binding on him.
The later plenary proceedings sought declarations that the vetting procedure breached constitutional rights and was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as an injunction limiting future disclosures about him to convictions. The defendants applied to strike out the case on several grounds, including breach of the settlement, res judicata, abuse of process and lack of standing.
Justice Laffoy rejected the settlement and res judicata grounds. She held that the settlement concerned the disclosures made in 2010 and did not bar a claim over a future disclosure. The earlier judicial review had ended by consent and had not involved a judicial decision on the merits of the issues raised in the later case.
The judge concluded, however, that the constitutional and Convention claims could have been raised in the judicial review or in parallel proceedings. She said the litigation therefore fell within the rule against successive suits where the issues could have been brought earlier. Although standing was not necessary to decide, she said Webster was in real danger of being adversely affected by the process and that his case was not merely hypothetical.
The court struck out the plenary proceedings solely on the abuse-of-process ground. It did not decide the merits of the constitutional or Convention claims, or the lawfulness of the Garda vetting process.