McAteer, Aine and Daniel McAteer and The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Cherith Craig
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Master Bell |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] NIMaster 10 |
| Court | High Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 08 November 2018 |
1
Neutral Citation : [2018] NIMaster 10 Ref:
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
8/11/18
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
------
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
------
BETWEEN:
Aine McAteer and Daniel McAteer
Plaintiffs;
and
The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
and
Cherith Craig
Defendants.
------
Master Bell
INTRODUCTION
[1] Daniel McAteer is an accountant and company director with a variety
of business interests. Aine McAteer is his wife, a businesswoman and
company director. Mr McAteer alleges that, as a result of his exposure of a
fraud, he has been the target of attempts to destroy his business interests and
reputation. Litigation in respect of these business dealings, involving Mr
McAteer and a number of other parties, has been commenced in both
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Allegations and counter-
allegations of criminal offences have been made to the police and have been
the subject of police investigation. In this context Mr McAteer alleges that
threats have been made against him and that these culminated in a bomb
being placed under his wife’s car.
2
[2] As part of a complex police investigation into an alleged fraud a
number of premises, including Mr McAteer’s business premises, were
searched in May 2015 under a search warrant obtained after an application
was made before His Honour Judge Babington. In April 2018 the Fraud and
Departmental Section of the Public Prosecution Service wrote to Mr and Mrs
McAteer to inform them that neither of them would be prosecuted for a
criminal offence in respect of the evidence submitted by police.
[3] Mr and Mrs McAteer subsequently issued a writ against the Chief
Constable for breach of statutory duty, negligence, malfeasance in public
office (sic), conspiracy, and breach of human rights. A Statement of Claim was
served by them on 6 October 2015 and an amended Statement of Claim was
served on 10 April 2016. The writ and amended Statement of Claim name
Detective Sergeant Cherith Craig as a second defendant.
[4] On 13 October 2017 the defendants issued a summons seeking an order
pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 striking out portions of the amended Statement
of Claim on the grounds that either they disclose no reasonable cause of
action against the defendants or that they are scandalous, frivolous or
vexatious or may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action, or
are otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The portions of the
amended Statement of Claim under challenge concern either allegations of
negligence by the police or concern allegations which, it is submitted, do not
support any cause of action. The challenged portions amount to 21
paragraphs, or parts of paragraphs, in the amended Statement of Claim.
These were highlighted in yellow highlighter for the parties and the court in
order to identify them.
[5] The defendants were represented at the hearings before me by Mr
Aldworth QC and Mr Robinson. Mr McAteer appeared on his own behalf as
a personal litigant and I received an affidavit from Mrs McAteer that, as far as
her response was concerned, she wished to adopt any submissions made by
Mr McAteer. I am grateful to both sides for their oral and written arguments.
THE CHALLENGES TO THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM
[6] The defendants base their application on a number of grounds. Firstly,
they submit that in respect of the claim of negligence there is no reasonable
cause of action because of a well-known line of decisions which make it very
difficult for a private citizen to sue the police for negligence. I shall refer to
this portion of the application as “the negligence issue”. Secondly, the
defendants assert that any cause of action in negligence, even if such existed,
is statute barred and must be struck out because there is a strict six year
limitation period in respect of cases of economic loss. I shall refer to this
portion of the application as “the limitation issue”. Thirdly, the defendants
assert that significant portions of the Statement of Claim are not material to
3
any cause of action pleaded and therefore ought to be struck out. I shall refer
to this portion of the application as “the pleadings issue”. Fourthly, in an
argument raised at the hearing the defendants challenged the portion of the
amended Statement of Claim alleging a breach of statutory duty. I shall refer
to this portion of the application as “the statutory duty issue”. Fifthly, the
defendants claim that these proceedings have been brought for a collateral
purpose, namely to discredit the fraud investigation being carried out by the
police and to influence the outcome of the criminal justice process. I shall refer
to this portion of the application as “the collateral purpose issue”. Sixthly, the
defendants argue that there is no reasonable cause of action in respect of the
tort of misfeasance in public office. I shall refer to this portion of the
application as “the misfeasance in public office issue”.
THE LAW: THE TEST FOR STRIKING OUT
[7] Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (N.I.) 1980
provides :
“(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to
be struck out or amended any pleading or the indorsement
of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in
the indorsement, on the ground that-
(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as
the case may be; or
(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the
action; or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or
judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.
(2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under
paragraph (1)(a).”
[8] The purpose of the striking out provisions is essentially to protect
defendants from hopeless litigation. But it may not be invoked to deprive
plaintiffs of their right to bring an arguable matter before the courts.
[9] In Lonrho v Al Fayed [1992] 1 AC 448 the court held that, on an
application to strike out an action on the basis that it discloses no reasonable
cause of action, the cause pleaded must be unarguable or almost incontestably
bad.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Kevin Magill and The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
...Mr Rafferty referred me to my decision in McAteer and McAteer v Chief Constable of the Police Service for Northern Ireland and Craig [2018] NIMaster 10 where I summarised the legal position in respect of applications under Order 18 Rule 19. Mr Rafferty submitted that it was a correct statem......
-
Paul Murphy and Casey and Casey Solicitors and Mr Gerry Cunningham and Ms Edel Casey and Ms Blaithin Murray and The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service
...cases in this jurisdiction and further afield in relation to “strike out” applications. In Aine and Daniel McAteer v PSNI and Craig [2018] NIMaster 10, the master at para 8 correctly observed: “The purpose of the striking out provisions is essentially to protect defendants from hopeless lit......