The Court of Appeal has declined Alan Moyne’s application to review or revisit its judgment dismissing his appeal against the striking out of his action. In a ruling delivered on 2 July 2024, the court also proposed awarding the respondents their costs of the appeal, with the amount to be measured if the parties cannot agree.
The earlier judgment, delivered on 19 April 2024, had dismissed Mr Moyne’s appeal against a High Court order striking out the action against all defendants as vexatious, an abuse of process and bound to fail. The July ruling addressed his subsequent request to revisit that judgment before the formal order was perfected, alongside submissions on appeal costs.
Mr Moyne argued that the earlier judgment had misunderstood his position on constitutional rights and absolute privilege under section 17 of the Defamation Act 2009. He also challenged the court’s treatment of whether his pleadings could be amended to advance malicious falsehood, and argued that alleged property losses and Circuit Court legal costs should have been considered. He further criticised the court’s reliance on a proposition about seeking vindication of constitutional rights in a court of first instance.
The court said an order made by Noonan J. had prevented constitutional declarations from being litigated in the appeal. It found that the earlier judgment had considered whether an amendment could save the malicious falsehood claim, and that Mr Moyne had not proposed how to amend it. The court also concluded that the alleged losses and costs did not meet the statutory requirement for financial loss in respect of property. It rejected his remaining complaints and said his application supplied no coherent reason to revisit the judgment, “no matter what standard is applied”.
On costs, the respondents argued they should receive their costs because they had succeeded entirely in defeating the appeal. Mr Moyne opposed the ordinary costs approach, alleging manipulation of an exhibit and misleading conduct concerning a Land Registry issue, and describing the case as a test case.
The court accepted that an exhibit to an affidavit had been poorly assembled, but found that its contents allowed the documents to be distinguished and that the assembly error did not amount to the alleged attempt to deceive. It said the complaint about misleading submissions was not made out and that the proceedings were not a test case of the kind Mr Moyne described. The court proposed that the respondents receive their appeal costs, to be measured in default of agreement. The ruling records that Power J. and Butler J. agreed.