Boyle v. Property Registration Authority of Ireland & Ors

Boyle v. Property Registration Authority of Ireland & Ors [2026] IECA 27 at [36] on strike-out principles applied: Jurisdiction ‘to strike out proceedings must be exercised “sparingly”’. Court ‘must be alert to the possibility that the claims being made by a plaintiff could be “saved” by an appropriate amendment’ [10]. Guerin v. O’Doherty [2026] IECA 48 [3]–[8], Barry v. Buckley [1981] IR 306, Sun Fat Chan v. Osseous Ltd [1992] 1 IR 425, Lac Minerals v. Chevron Corporation [1995] 1 ILRM 161, O’N v. McD [2013] IEHC 135 and McCourt v. Tiernan [2005] IEHC 268 applied [10].

1. 1.1

   Court of Appeal strike-out of same pleadings: Claim against State Defendants already largely struck out [5]. ‘In my view, the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal is of central importance. The Court has already examined these proceedings in considerable detail and the Court of Appeal described the plaintiff’s pleadings as an “unbridled narrative” which was “vague”, “non-specific”, “prolix” and “extremely difficult to follow”.’ [47]

Keohane v. Hynes [2014] IESC 66 on use of undisputed facts applied: ‘court can, in limited circumstances, have regard to matters of undisputed fact and strike out a case that is bound to fail based on those undisputed facts’ [11]. Jurisdiction ‘to be exercised cautiously and sparingly and only in cases where there is no basis in law or fact for the case to succeed.’ [12] Hilary Delany and Declan McGrath, Delany and McGrath on Civil Procedure (5th edn, Round Hall 2023) paras 16-38–16-40 adopted [11].

1. 2.1

   No cause of action against Fifth Defendant loan owner: ‘even assuming every factual allegation made against the fifth defendant was correct, I cannot identify from the final Amended Statement of Claim any recognised cause of action capable of generating the reliefs sought.’ [63]

2. 2.2

   Dillon v. Irish Life Assurance plc [2025] IESC 37 at [24] on stress without recognised injury applied: Eighteenth Defendant former official’s remarks: ‘The plaintiff claims that the remarks caused him stress but does not allege any recognised injury, loss or damage arising from them.’ [73]

Particulars of fraud, collusion and conspiracy required: ‘allegations of fraud, collusion and conspiracy require proper details to be pleaded. … fraud and conspiracy should only be pleaded when there is, at a minimum, a contended for factual basis to underpin them.’ [48]

No saving amendment: ‘Between September 2022 and June 2024, the plaintiff delivered (to at least some of the defendants) eight different statements of claim.’ [4] ‘plaintiff has already had multiple opportunities to formulate and amend his claim. The final Amended Statement of Claim is his eighth statement of claim. In addition, the defects identified are not merely defects of pleading capable of correction by further amendment.’ [76]

Time used to strike out: ‘While a plea of the Statute is normally a matter for the defence, I am satisfied that … these proceedings against these defendants should be struck out in the overall circumstances that pertain here.’ [50]

1. 5.1

   Fourth Defendant bank out of time: ‘actual events complained of against Ulster Bank occurred in 2012 or earlier and were known to the plaintiff since January 2014 in sufficient detail to enable the plaintiff to instruct solicitors to write to Ulster Bank complaining about these events.’ [56]

2. 5.2

   Sixth Defendant accountants out of time: ‘in so far as any cause of action can be discerned from the pleading, it relates to matters long since outside the applicable limitation period and is therefore statute-barred’ [68].

3. 5.3

   Fourteenth Defendant sister out of time: Removal from bank account in June 2012 and payment of €20,000 by mother in 2014: ‘These claims are clearly out of time.’ [70]

Complaints up to 2012: ‘the vast majority of his complaints relate to the period from the early 1990s (when he alleges the slavery began) up to 2012 when he was, he claims, wrongly removed from the family farm partnership.’ [49]

Knowledge, not understanding: ‘While the plaintiff contends that he only came to understand these matters through the lens of “modern slavery” in 2022 that is not the relevant question for limitation purposes.’ [75]

1. 7.1

   Section 49 of the Statute of Limitations 1957 on extension for disability not applicable: Alleged ‘modern slavery’ ‘has not precluded him from issuing proceedings against the persons he believes are perpetrating this “modern slavery” and he has done so on a regular basis since 2014.’ [57]

Abuse of process held: ‘abuse of process to use High Court proceedings to make extreme, serious and yet vague and unclear allegations of wrongdoing that are hopelessly out of date.’ [51]

Joinder of spouse abuse of process: Inclusion of Fifteenth Defendant ‘is particularly gratuitous and constitutes an abuse of process.’ [71]

Strike-out ordered: ‘plaintiff’s claim as against the fourth, fifth, sixth, fourteenth, fifteenth and eighteenth defendants should be struck out.’ [77]