The High Court has dismissed John M. Searson’s action against 13 members of the Committee of Public Accounts (PAC), finding that his claim against them was frivolous and vexatious and bound to fail on the pleadings.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the judgment on 21 February 2020. The application was brought by the second to fourteenth named defendants, who sought to have the claim struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, as frivolous or vexatious. The court dismissed the action against those defendants. It did not decide Searson’s separate dispute with Dublin City Council over alleged defects in his home.
Searson, a litigant in person, is a tenant of a council property on Mourne Road in Drimnagh. He alleged that works carried out there in 2010 were defective, including the fitting of windows and doors and work to the kitchen and bathroom. He also alleged that the PAC had conspired with the council to breach his rights after it received his complaint about the works.
The complaint was passed to the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. The committee asked Dublin City Council about compliance with building and disability rules and the routes available to tenants dissatisfied with refurbishment work. The council replied that its current window-fitting method complied with the regulations and outlined appeal avenues. In September 2014, the joint committee decided the issue was not a public service oversight matter and would not be progressed further. It did not determine the underlying dispute between Searson and the council.
Barr J found there was no cause of action against the PAC members because the PAC had passed the correspondence to another committee, which dealt with the complaint. He said that even if the defendants were treated as representing the joint committee, the claim still could not succeed. The committee had decided the issue was outside its remit; if Searson was dissatisfied, the judge said, his remedy was to seek judicial review for an order compelling it to consider the complaint.
The judge also rejected Searson’s argument that the defendants could not apply because pleadings had closed. They had been substituted for the originally named second defendant under an order made by MacGrath J in February 2019 and entered an appearance within the time set by that order. Barr J said they were entitled to bring the application before filing a defence.
The ruling addressed only the claim against the PAC members. The judgment records allegations about the council works and the committee’s handling of the complaint; it does not make findings on whether the works were defective or whether the council’s response was accurate.