The Court of Appeal has dismissed William Mulrooney’s appeal against the striking out of his negligence claim over Garda examinations of a disputed lease, and upheld an order restricting further proceedings about its alleged alteration.
The appeal concerned a High Court order made on 27 July 2017. That court dismissed Mulrooney’s claim as an abuse of process, for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and as frivolous and vexatious. It also made an Isaac Wunder order restricting proceedings over the alleged fraudulent amendment of the lease.
The lease, dated 1 April 1999, covered 16.6 acres in County Kilkenny and a milk quota. On its face, it ran for five years. Mulrooney and his father maintained that it had been altered from three years to five. Earlier litigation over the lease included a Circuit Court judgment for the lessor, settlements of related claims, and later proceedings that were dismissed. In 2013, the Supreme Court held that the allegation of unlawful alteration had been settled and could not be litigated again.
Mulrooney’s current claim alleged negligence in the Garda investigation of his complaint. He challenged the 2010 forensic examination and said a second examination in 2015 was also inadequate. The Garda examiner reported finding no evidence of alteration in the specified areas of the document. Mulrooney argued that the second examination showed the earlier work was deficient, and that his claim could be amended to include misfeasance in public office.
The Court of Appeal said the negligence claim depended on proving that the lease had been unlawfully altered. That was the same issue the Supreme Court had held Mulrooney could not relitigate, regardless of the different defendants in this case. The court said the evolving law on police duties did not change that procedural obstacle. It also rejected the proposed amendment, concluding that allowing it at this stage would condone an abuse of process.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the scope of the Isaac Wunder order. It said the order does not impose an absolute bar: Mulrooney may apply to the President of the High Court, or a judge nominated by that office, for leave to bring proposed proceedings concerning the lease.