The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Harrington’s challenge to a High Court order allowing several defendants in his civil proceedings to amend a motion seeking to have his case struck out.
Mr Harrington issued proceedings in July 2023 against SRF Limited, Richard James Fitzpatrick and six other defendants. His claims include allegations arising from the sale of an “umbilical system” for £49,224, together with allegations of fraud, defamation, intimidation and other wrongdoing. Those allegations remain disputed and were not decided in this appeal.
In June 2024, John J. Quinn, Conor Quinn, Pauline Brady, Oliver Brady and John J. Quinn & Company Solicitors LLP sought to dismiss the proceedings because Mr Harrington had not delivered his statement of claim within the prescribed time.
By the time that motion came before the High Court in December 2024, the statement of claim had been delivered. The defendants therefore sought permission to amend their motion so they could instead argue that the claims against them disclosed no sustainable cause of action, were an abuse of process and were bound to fail.
The High Court allowed that amendment and gave Mr Harrington time to file a replying affidavit. It refused his request to amend a separate “cross notice of motion” which he had issued to have the defendants’ motions struck out.
Mr Harrington appealed. Mr Justice Brian O’Moore held that the High Court had acted correctly. The amendment allowed the real dispute over whether the proceedings should be struck out to be decided without requiring another motion and further costs.
The Court of Appeal also said Mr Harrington’s cross-motion served no useful procedural purpose. A party opposing a motion can simply argue that it should fail without bringing another motion asking for that result.
The appeal was dismissed. The court’s provisional view was that the respondents should receive their appeal costs, subject to submissions seeking a different order.