The High Court directed Michael O’Reilly to send all further correspondence and pleadings in his litigation with Maria Hallihan to her solicitor while that solicitor remains on record and has provided an address for service. The direction followed a finding that O’Reilly’s attempts to serve Hallihan personally after her solicitor entered an appearance amounted to an abuse of process.
Hallihan is an executive officer in the Management Information Services Unit of the Collector-General’s division of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The judgment says that, between 2003 and 2005, she was involved in preparing a proposal to make O’Reilly bankrupt and later gave instructions in proceedings involving the Collector-General and O’Reilly. O’Reilly alleged that she knowingly set out material details in the bankruptcy proposal. The judgment states that those matters were in dispute in the proceedings.
The Revenue Solicitor entered an appearance for Hallihan on 21 October 2011. O’Reilly maintained that he could serve her personally at work and at home despite her solicitor being on record. Hallihan sought a court direction to stop personal service and direct correspondence with her about the litigation.
Mr Justice Hogan said the Rules of the Superior Courts did not expressly regulate the situation, but the court had inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its process. He concluded that once a solicitor had entered an appearance and supplied an address for service, the represented party could insist that pleadings and correspondence be channelled through that solicitor. Personal service in those circumstances could cause inconvenience and embarrassment and interfere with the defendant’s right to legal representation.
The court’s direction applies for as long as Hallihan retains a solicitor on record whose appearance complies with Order 12, rule 7 by providing an address for service. Unless the court gives further leave, all future correspondence and service of pleadings must go to the solicitor, not Hallihan personally at home, work or elsewhere. The judgment does not determine the disputed allegations concerning the bankruptcy proposal.