Gerry Adams asks judge to throw out claims against Provisional IRA

Lawyers for former Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams have asked a judge to throw out damage claims brought against the Provisional IRA (PIRA).

Victims of bombings in London and Manchester are suing Mr Adams and the PIRA for nominal damages of £1.

Legal arguments were outlined at a preliminary High Court hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Mr Adams said claims against the PIRA should be struck out.

Mr Justice Soole said he would deliver a ruling on a date to be fixed.

The former Sinn Féin leader has consistently denied being a member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA).

John Clark, a victim of the Old Bailey bombing in March 1973, has brought forward the case alongside Jonathan Ganesh and Barry Laycock.

Mr Ganesh is a victim of the London Docklands bombing in February 1996.

Mr Laycock is a victim of the June 1996 Arndale shopping centre bombing in Manchester.

The head of Mr Adams' legal team, Richard Hermer KC, said the case was "unusual".

He told the court the PIRA was an "unincorporated association" which was "incapable in law of being sued".

The conduct of the claim had also been "characterised by a significant number of procedural breaches and irregularities," Mr Hermer added.

Anne Stud KC, legal representative for the three claimants, said each of the men alleged Mr Adams was "liable to them" as an individual for his role in the preparation and planning of the attacks, and as a "representative" for the PIRA.

"It is anticipated that [Mr Adams] will deny that he was ever a member of the (Provisional IRA)," she said in a written case outline.

"Although currently the court should note that it has no evidence upon which to base that conclusion there being no defence entered and no statement from [Mr Adams] setting out his account."

Ms Stud said the case raises "important issues on access to justice" where claimants allege the "most heinous wrongdoing by an individual who they allege was a member of an organisation responsible for significant injury through terrorist means".

Mr Hermer said nothing he said on behalf of Mr Adams was intended to "deny or minimise" the claimants' experiences or suffering.

In a written case outline, he told the judge his client was "conscious that the claimants have suffered significantly" as a result of the bombings in which they were innocent victims.

Mr Hermer also did not argue entire claims made against Mr Adams should be struck out, but only "representative" aspects of claims.