BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Riordan v. Hamilton [2000] IEHC 189 (26th June, 2000)
THE
HIGH COURT
1999
No.12562P
BETWEEN
DENIS
RIORDAN
Plaintiff
AND
CHIEF
JUSTICE LIAM HAMILTON, JUDGE DONAL BARRINGTON, JUDGE HENRY BARRON, JUDGE KEVIN
LYNCH, JUDGE SUSAN DENHAM, JUDGE FRANCIS MURPHY, JUDGE RONAN KEANE AND JUDGE
HUGH O’FLAHERTY (RESIGNED)
Defendants
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE BY THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE THOMAS SMYTH ON 26TH JUNE 2000
Official
Stenographer
________________________
page break ________________________
APPEARANCES
PLAINTIFF
IN PERSON
FOR
THE DEFENDANTS:
John
Rogers SC
Nuala
Butler BL
Instructed
by
Chief
State Solicitor
________________________
page break ________________________
1
1. This
matter comes before me by way of a Notice of Motion grounded on an affidavit
sworn by Mr Laurence Farrell on 24th May 2000. This affidavit is
uncontroverted. While certain matters have been raised by way of submissions,
the affidavit has a number of exhibits attached to it, some of which have been
discussed during the submissions.
2. The
Notice of Motion seeks five forms of relief. The first relief sought is:
“1. An
order striking out the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that constitutes
an abuse of the process of this Honourable Cot.
That
first relief is referable to the case of
Barry
v Buckley
and to other cases of that nature dealing with the inherent jurisdiction of U
court.
I
do not want to say anything that would add fuel to a fire that is already
burning in the background because these matters are the subject of earlier
litigation and of matters going back to the Supreme Court or Thursday of this
week. I do not want to delay my decision in case it i decided to appeal it on
Thursday. However, I do not have the slightest hesitation in dealing with the
matter.
At
the outset I want to draw attention to a number of matters, the firs of which
is that the evidence before me is the evidence in Mr Farrell’s affidavit,
the only evidence on which I have to adjudicate. Other than one or two matters
drawn specifically to my attention, there does not appear to be any dispute as
to the facts.
The
interpretation of the facts and the use of particular words or language seems
to be of some importance to the Plaintiff Mr Riordan.
________________________
page break ________________________
2
The
second point relates to a default in pleading. Mr Riordan has drawn my
attention to 0.19, r.13 and it provides exactly as he says. However, if the
Defendants were to join issue with the Plaintiff in a situation like this, the
point could be rightly taken against them that they had not taken the position
of challenging rather than submitting to controversy. Accordingly, the
Defendants have opted for the provisions of 0.19, r.28 which are:
“The
Court may order any pleading to be struck out on the ground that it discloses
no reasonable cause of action or answer and in any such case or in case of the
action or defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious,
the Court may order the action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgment to be
entered accordingly, as may be just.”
3. The
matter clearly came to be considered by the Defendants under a ran of headings,
the first one being under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
4. I
had reason to draw the Plaintiff’s attention to his manner of address and
I did so because of the decision in
Bloomer
and Ors v Incorporated Law Society of Ireland
[1995] 3 IR 14 (H.C.); Supreme Court decision delivered on 6th February 1996.
That judgment also deals with the position where the court should not be
considering submissions consist of contemptuous language and unfounded
allegations. It is, of course, possible to criticize people in a civilized way
without using such language. Generally, most people disregard the views of
others unless they are of the same opinion. It is not, however, a very sound
way of testing reasonableness and does not necessarily accord with critical
intelligence.
5. Is
it an abuse of the process that these matters have now come before the Court?
Having considered the matter and the various excerpts from
________________________
page break ________________________
3
the
reported cases and as reviewed in the Annual Review of 1996 and 1997 I am
satisfied that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to engage in
this litigation and I so hold.
6. The
second relief sought in the Notice of Motion is:
“2. Alternatively,
an order striking out the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that it
discloses no reasonable cause of action has no reasonable prospect of
success.”
7. In
this regard it seems to me that there is a distinction to be drawn between the
inherent jurisdiction of the court and rule 28, and Mr Rogers has done that.
The court may order an action to be struck out before the pleadings are
delivered (see:
Barry
v Buckley
[1981] IR 316: Conversely, the application of rule 28 is to those situations
where it could be shown from the pleadings themselves that the proceedings are
frivolous or vexatious (see:
Cavern
Systems Dublin Ltd v Clontarf Residents Association
[1984] ILRM 24 and
McCabe
v Harding Investments Ltd
[1984] 1 ILRM 105).
8. Mr
Rogers and Mr Riordan have spent some time dealing with the question of the
jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction to dismiss an action ‘on the
basis that, on admitted facts, it cannot succeed’ is one the court should
be slow to exercise (see:
Sun
Fat Chan v Osseous Ltd
[1992] IR 425). And where a statement of claim admits of an amendment which
might save the action, the proceedings should not be dismissed. That was the
position taken in the Supreme Court by the late Mr Justice McCarthy. No matter
what may arise in discovery or at the trial of the action, a judge acceding to
an application to dismiss must be confident that it will be resolved in favour
of the defendant’s contention. That decision has been relied on on a
number of occasions since. It seems to me that that view is important because
Mr Riordan has urged me to see i
________________________
page break ________________________
4
a
different way. However, as Mr Rogers acknowledged in his opening submissions,
the court should be slow to entertain an application of this kind. Indeed, the
dicta of McCarthy 3.
in
Sun
Fat Chan v. Osseou
was to the effect that experience has shown that the trial of an action will
identify a variety of circumstances perhaps not entirely contemplated at
earlier stages in the proceedings.
9. The
position here is that these matters have already been litigated. There is no
new matter and this is an effort to re-litigate the same matters and to
effectively ask this court to review the decisions of the Supreme Court or to
ask another judge to embark upon a hearing at a later stage. In my opinion it
is neither open nor would it be appropriate to do so in this case.
10. In
the circumstances I will make an order striking out the Plaintiff’s claim
on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and has no
reasonable prospect of success. I do not think it is necessary to rehearse the
submissions made by the parties in the last three hours.
11. The
third relief sought in the Notice of Motion is:
“3. An
order restraining the Plaintiff from issuing any further proceedings against
the Defendants to the above-entitled proceedings or any person holding the
office of Judge of the Supreme Court without leave of this Honourable
Court.”
12. It
seems to me that there is a range of proceedings in the nature of serial
litigation compounded one on the other and that it should not continue. People
who have genuine cases to put before the court should be permitted to have
their cases litigated. In
McSorley
v O’Mahony
________________________
page break ________________________
5
(6th
November 1996) Costello 3. indicated that the whole approach to the courts
under 0.19 should be clear and exceptional. He went on to say:
‘It
is an abuse of the process of the court to permit the court’s time to be
taken up with litigation which can confer no benefit on a plaintiff. It is also
an abuse to permit litigation to proceed which will undoubtedly cause detriment
to a defendant an’ which can confer no gain on a plaintiff.”
13. In
my opinion this present case is litigation of that character.
14. In
the circumstances I will make an order restraining the Plaintiff from issuing
any further proceedings cause or matter against the Defendants or any person
holding the office of Judge of the Supreme Court and of the High Court. Lest
anyone should think that I am shirking my duty, am quite happy to be nominated
as the judge to whom that reference must be made.
15. The
Notice of Motion seeks further relief as follows:
“4. Such
further or other order as to this Honourable Court shall seem fit.”
16. Having
read the pleadings in extenso during lunch and having listened carefully to Mr
Rogers and to Mr Riordan, it seems to me that the provisions of 0.19, r.27 have
something to say in this regard:
“The
Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any
matter in any indorsement or pleading which may be unnecessary or scandalous,
or which may tend to prejudice embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action;
and may in any such case, if it shall think fit, order the costs of the
application to be paid as between solicitor and client.”
17. A
number of allegations have been made in the pleadings. The purpose pleadings is
to convey what the nature of the action is. Pleadings should not be used as an
opportunity of placing unnecessary or scandalous matters on the record of the
court, or as an opportunity of disseminating such matters when they have
nothing to do with any dispute between the
________________________
page break ________________________
6
parties.
Allegations are not scandalous where they would be admissible in evidence to
show the truth of any allegation in the pleadings which is material to the
relief claimed. The authority for that statement
Christie
v Christie
(1873) Ch.499. “However, any unnecessary matter containing any imputation
such as.. .may be struck out as scandalous.” (see:
Murray
v Epsom Local Board
(1897) 1 Ch.35). In the pleadings he there are allegations which are totally
unnecessary to any reasonably balanced or strongly held views of a plaintiff as
against a defendant. The imputations of character made here would leave a
person open to litigation in defamation had they not been accorded the
protection of privilege of the court. The pleadings here, it seems to me, are
of the character. I need not go through them but merely highlight further what
I would regard as contemptuous language and scandalous allegations. I is
perfectly in order for a litigant to say that a defendant has acted in a
particular way. However, what has been imputed here is not only over the top
but is being deliberately used for the purpose of trying advance some view
which does not accord with fairness, common sense, justice, constitutional
right or with any modicum of decency.
18. Accordingly,
I will order that the pleadings in this case be stricken from the record.
19. Having
heard the parties on the question of costs, I order that the Plaintiff do pay
the Defendants their costs, the costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
© 2000 Irish High Court
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2000/189.html
