About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] IEHC 291
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Michael Twomey

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Michael Twomey opined that “there was no obligation on her to provide any security for costs (not even a modest amount, based on her means, which might act as a disincentive to improper litigation). Thus, Ms Shannon, as an individual litigant, was able for almost 30 years to take misguided and abusive claims against her brother in the High Court, at little or no cost to her, but at enormous cost to him.”

Background

The parties engaged in a 30-year period of vexatious litigation in which the respondent’s sisters repeatedly attempted to establish ownership over a family farm and dwelling house which had been left to the respondent by their mother. The litigation took place primarily in the High Court, but included an appeal to the Supreme Court, and continued despite an Isaac Wunder order having been ordered against the sisters by the Supreme Court.

The respondent secured an order for possession and the sisters were removed from the property in 2006. The sisters immediately returned to the property and refused to leave, with the respondent becoming concerned that they would seek to establish ownership by adverse possession.

Accordingly, the respondent established his title to the property again by way of possession proceedings in the Circuit Court. The sisters appealed to the High Court, asserting that they had acquired ownership by adverse possession.

The High Court

Finding that 12 years had not passed and being satisfied that the respondent had exercised various acts of ownership of the property over the years, the High Court found the appellants’ assertions to be unsustainable.

Mr Justice Twomey took the opportunity to reflect upon the actions of the appellant sisters, who the judge described as pursuing a “vendetta” against the respondent over a modest inheritance, inflicting “enormous financial loss” upon him in “one of the worst examples ever of the weaponisation of the courts”.

The court considered inter alia that “this injustice” was exacerbated by the changes introduced by the Courts Acts and other legislation which reduced the proportion of District and Circuit Courts to High Courts, noting: “This reduction in the proportion of those courts amounts, in effect, to a reduction in the proportion of ‘affordable’ courts. This is because the District Court might described as ‘affordable’ to a person on the average wage.”

Highlighting the “dramatic reduction in the proportion of litigation conducted in the most affordable trial courts” and the “dramatic increase in the proportion of litigation conducted in the most expensive trial court” that has occurred since 1961, Mr Justice Twomey considered: “A very significant amount of this huge volume of litigation is minor in nature, resulting in High Court costs being out of all proportion to the value or importance of the dispute. Indeed, the value of some of the disputes, which are permitted/required to be heard in the High Court, are such that they would fall within the jurisdiction, not of the District Court (up to €15,000), but of the Small Claims Court (up to €2,000).”

The judge noted by way of example that “the High Court had to hear a dispute about whether a €500 deposit should be returned to a tenant. Similarly, the High Court had to deal with judicial review proceedings in relation to a dispute over a clamping release fee of €80. It is not surprising therefore that judges regularly point out that certain disputes ‘should never have come before the High Court at all’.”

The High Court emphasised inter alia “the current situation in the High Court, where a defendant facing damages of only €60,001, in a personal injuries action, or €75,001 in a defamation action, or a dispute with a neighbour over a dispute with a value of €75,001, could be faced with costs of hundreds of thousands of euro in the High Court to get ‘justice’”.

Mr Justice Twomey pointed out that there was no evidence that the respondent ever recovered any of his legal costs from the litigation, allowing his unrepresented sisters to “weaponise the legal system, even more than other litigants” as “there was no obligation on her to provide any security for costs (not even a modest amount, based on her means, which might act as a disincentive to improper litigation). Thus, Ms Shannon, as an individual litigant, was able for almost 30 years to take misguided and abusive claims against her brother in the High Court, at little or no cost to her, but at enormous cost to him.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Circuit Court.

Shannon v Shannon & Anor [2024] IEHC 291