Antonion Casimiro Lopes v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Hanna
Judgment Date11 June 2008
Neutral Citation[2008] IEHC 246
Docket Number[2007
CourtHigh Court
Date11 June 2008

[2008] IEHC 246

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 2370 P/2007]
Lopes v Min for Justice

BETWEEN

ANTONION CASIMIRO LOPES
PLAINTIFF

AND

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
DEFENDANT

RSC O.19 r28

RSC O.19 r27

EC TREATY ART 12

CONSTITUTION ART 35

EC TREATY ART 13

SIRROS v MOORE & ORS 1975 1 QB 118

DESMOND & MCD MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD v RIORDAN 2000 1 IR 505 2000 1 ILRM 502

MACAULEY & CO LTD v WYSE POWER 1943 77 ILTR 61

DEIGHAN v IRELAND 1995 2 IR 56 1995 1 ILRM 88

BARRY v BUCKLEY 1981 IR 306

K (D) v K (A) 1994 1 IR 166

RIORDAN v HAMILTON & ORS UNREP SMYTH 26.6.2000 2000/16/6098

KOBLER v REPUBLIK OSTERREICH 2004 1 QB 848

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

Strike out proceedings

Inherent jurisdiction - Judicial immunity - Motion to dismiss or strike out claim - Claim of racial discrimination by courts - Whether frivolous or vexatious - Whether reasonable cause of action - Whether claim scandalous - Whether Minister can be vicariously liable where judges immune - Desmond v Riordan [2000] 1 IR 505, Sirros v Moore [1975] 1 QB 118, Deighan v Ireland [1995] 2 IR 56, Barry v Buckley [1981] IR 306, Goodson v Grierson [1908] 1 KB 761, DK v King [1994] IR 166 and Riordan v Hamilton (Unrep, Smyth J, 26/6/2000) followed - Constitution of Ireland 1937, art 35 - Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 13 - Proceedings struck out (2007/2370P - Hanna J - 11/6/2008) [2008] IEHC 246

Lopes v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

1

Mr. Justice Hanna on the 11th day of June 2008

2

The plaintiff in these proceedings is a citizen of a Member State of the European Union, namely Portugal, hailing as he does originally from the Cape Verde Islands. He is or has been inter alia, a seafarer. He is also a lay litigant. This matter comes before me by way of a Motion brought by the respondent within the plaintiff's proceedings. The principal reliefs sought are as follows:

3

1. An order pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts dismissing, or alternatively, striking out the plaintiff's claim against the defendant on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action against the defendant and is shown by the Pleadings to be frivolous and/or vexatious.

4

2. Further, or in the alternative, an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the defendant as being an abuse of process of this Court and/or as having no reasonable prospects of success and/or being bound to fail.

5

3. Further, or in the alternative, an order pursuant to Order 19 Rule 27 of the Rules of the Superior Courts dismissing, or alternatively striking out the plaintiff's claim as being scandalous.

6

The background facts and circumstances leading to the plaintiff's proceedings can be summarised as follows.

7

On the 11th December 1988, Mr. Lopes was unfortunately involved in a road traffic accident which was no fault of his own. He subsequently, through his then solicitor, a Mr. Walker, brought proceedings in the Circuit Court. These proceedings were heard in Naas Circuit Court before Judge Patrick Smith (as he then was) and an award was made to the plaintiff amounting to IR£10, 000.00 for general damages and IR£2, 000.00 in special damages. Those sums are roughly translated into today's money to €12, 697.38 and €2, 539.48 respectively.

8

Mr. Lopes was not well pleased with what happened to him because he maintained inter alia that his injuries were more significant and that he had suffered a significant loss of future earning power. This led to him instituting proceedings against his solicitor and one of his medical advisors, the Consultant Neurologist, Dr. Roderick Galvin.

9

On the 29th March 1995, Mr. Justice Morris (as he then was) dismissed Mr. Lopes' case against Dr. Galvin and on the 31 st March 1995, Mr. Justice Morris similarly dismissed the plaintiff's claim against his solicitor, Mr. Walker. On the 25th November 1996, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Lopes' appeal against the dismissal of his action against Dr. Galvin; the Supreme Court on that occasion being constituted in the personage of O'Flaherty, Barrington and Murphy JJ. However, on the 28th July 1997, the Supreme Court, comprising of Murphy, Lynch and Barron JJ., allowed Mr. Lope's appeal against the dismissal of his action against Mr. Walker and the matter was then remitted to the High Court for the determination of the damages. This, as I have indicated, was an action against his solicitor brought under the rubric of the tort of negligence.

10

On the 26th and 30th June and 1st July 1998, the action was heard by Mr. Justice Geoghegan and on the 2nd July 1998 he awarded the sum of €66, 185.69 (that is the equivalent thereof), less the sum of €12, 697.38 previously awarded to Mr. Lopes for general damages. That order was perfected on the 21st July 1998. Mr. Lopes appealed this decision, again at all times representing himself. This came before the Supreme Court, which was then made up of O'Flaherty, Lynch and Barrington JJ., and judgment was reserved. Unfortunately for all parties involved (including Mr. Lopes), certain difficulties arose which necessitated the resignation from the Bench of O'Flaherty J., as a consequence of which this case simply had to be heard again. Mr. Lopes does raise some queries about this but it seems to me that any query is wholly without foundation, since as one of the constituent members of the Court had to resign, the Court had to be reconstituted and the matter re-heard.

11

This re-hearing took place on the 21st June 1999 and judgment was delivered on the 19th July 1999, this Supreme Court consisting of Lynch J., Hamilton C.J. and Barron J. This resulted in a tripling of the damages to Mr. Lopes to the amount of €196, 809.40 or its equivalent in punts, including €63, 486.90, the equivalent to IR£50, 000.00 for future special damages. The order was made in favour of Mr. Lopes, again taking into account the previous award made to him.

12

Here lies the fundamental cause of Mr. Lopes' grievance. In a nutshell, he alleges that insufficient provision was made for him in respect of future loss of earnings as a navigator/seaman and this he attributes to a variety of reasons to which I will shortly refer.

13

Some years later, on the 26th March 2007, he issued a Plenary Summons against the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. An appearance was entered on behalf of the defendant and on the 29th June 2007, the defendant brought a Motion to dismiss Mr. Lopes' claim. On the 26th June 2007, Mr. Lopes delivered his Statement of Claim.

14

I should observe at this point that it was indicated to me (and I would be most surprised if it were not to be the case) that, at the very least, the statute of limitations would loom extremely large in this case.

15

Mr. Lopes has brought a Plenary Summons and a Statement of Claim. The latter, with a few additions, is to all intents and purposes, the same as the former. It is a somewhat diffuse document but in basic summary, the plaintiff claims against The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under Article 12 of the Consolidated Treaty establishing the European Union. That article enjoins the Council to take appropriate action to combat discrimination, inter alia, based on racial or ethnic origin.

16

A brief summary of his claim is as follows.

17

Firstly, he alleges such discrimination on the part of a "state body", namely the High Court and Supreme Court Judges who have at various times dealt with his litigation. As a consequence, he alleges he has not been adequately compensated for future loss of earnings as a navigator/seaman. He further...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Beades v Ireland
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 3 June 2016
    ...Oireachtas under Article 35.4.1°. 46 This was emphasised in a case cited by counsel for the defendants of Lopes v. Minister for Justice [2008] 4 I.R. 743 that confirms that judges are immune from suit in the carrying out of their judicial duties. There, the court was concerned with a claim......
  • Beades v Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 14 March 2018
    ...Oireachtas under the provisions of the Constitution. This was indeed a point emphasised in the case of Lopes v. Minister for Justice [2008] 4 I.R. 743 in which Hanna J. in the High Court, in striking out proceedings in that case in which the plaintiff had claimed that he had been the subje......
  • Tom O'Driscoll v Seamus Dunne and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 11 February 2015
    ...the proceedings are scandalous and unsustainable both in law and in fact see Lopez v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] I.E.H.C. 246. Abuse of Process 88 48. The institution of proceedings which are frivolous, vexatious, or brought for a purpose which is ulterior or extra......
  • Wilkinson v Ardbrook Homes Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 22 July 2016
    ... ... Ms. Justice Baker by exercising its inherent jurisdiction ... As Clarke J. said in Lopes v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT