A claim by convicted criminal Martin 'The Viper' Foley and his wife Sonya against the former Dublin City Sheriff and the State following the seizure of their goods from their home in 2014 has been struck out.
Mr Foley and his wife Sonya Doyle, aka Sonya Foley had sued the now retired Sheriff Mr James Barry, the Garda Commissioner, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General alleging a breach of privacy occurred when the their home was searched on October 15th, 2014.
They claimed that defendants allegedly disclosed confidential material about the operation in advance to members of the media, who were present at the Foley home when the search and seizure occurred.
The claims were fully denied. The proceedings had been initiated in 2015.
Mr Barry, represented by Benedict Ó Floinn SC instructed by Kent Carty Solicitors, brought a pretrial motion seeking to have the action dismissed on the grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay.
It was claimed that while certain legal documents had been exchanged in the case, nothing had been done by the Foleys to progress their case for several years.
Mr Barry, who retired from the role of Dublin City Sheriff in 2018, claimed he had been prejudiced as a result of the delay of several years.
He also argued that no reason for the delay has been given to him by the Foleys.
When that matter came before Mr Justice David Nolan on Monday, the court was told the Foleys were not contesting Mr Barry's application.
Mr Ó Floinn said that the Foleys had written to his side late last week indicating they were not opposing his client's bid for an order dismissing the entire proceedings.
Mr Justice Nolan agreed with counsel that the Foleys' action against all of the respondents should be struck out.
In their action, the Foleys had claimed various rights, including their right to privacy, were breached when agents of Barry, and Gardai with the CAB, attended the couple's home at Cashel Avenue, Crumlin in October 2014.
The search and seizure, it was alleged, was conducted by the Sheriff on foot of documentation provided to him by the Criminal Assets Bureau.
They also alleged that several journalists and photographers were also present when the operation took place. They claimed that several articles and photographs were subsequently published in several newspapers about the operation.
They claimed that the defendants had allegedly negligently provided the media with what they alleged were sensitive and private information about the search and seizure operation.
This it was claimed in proceedings initiated by the Foleys amounted to a breach of their right to privacy, resulting in them suffering loss, damage, distress and embarrassment.
They sought damages for what they claimed was a breach of their constitutional right to privacy, breach of data protection rights, and breach of their enjoyment of their home.
They further alleged that the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had also been breached, that the defendants were negligent and in breach of their duty of care towards the Foleys.
The claims were fully denied.
