Doherty (plaintiff) v Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian McGovern
• Judgment Date: 15 May 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] IEHC 246
• Court: High Court
• Date: 15 May 2009

Doherty v Min for Justice & Ors

BETWEEN

DANIEL DOHERTY

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM AND JOHN HEDIGAN OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND JOHN L. MURRAY OF THE SUPREME COURT AND JOSEPH FINNEGAN OF THE SUPREME COURT AND RICHARD JOHNSON OF THE HIGH COURT AND PAUL CARNEY OF THE HIGH COURT AND KEVIN O'HIGGINS OF THE HIGH COURT AND FREDERICK MORRIS OF THE HIGH COURT AND MATTHEW DEERY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND MICHAEL WHITE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND JOSEPH MATTHEWS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND MIRIAM MALONE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND JOHN O'DONNELL OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND TOM FITZPATRICK OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND SEAN MCBRIDE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND ANNIE MCGINLEY, ASSISTANT COUNTY REGISTRAR FOR COUNTY DONEGAL AND GERALDINE O'CONNOR, REGISTRAR FOR COUNTY DONEGAL, AND VAL CRONIN OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN DONEGAL AND

Doherty v Min for Justice & Ors

THE LAND REGISTRY AND THE BAR COUNCIL OF IRELAND AND THE LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SIOCHÁNA AND CATHERINE CLANCY AND NOEL V. WHITE AND THE CRIMINAL ASSETS BUREAU AND THE GARDA OMBUDSMAN AND JOHN LONERGAN AND DAN SCANNELL AND TONY KILBANE AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND THE COURTS SERVICE AND THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND MARTINA KEARNEY AND KIERAN LYNCH AND THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE AND LIAM IRWIN AND ANN HERRITY AND KIERAN O'CONNELL AND BERTIE AHERN AND JAMES MCDAID AND CECELIA KEAVENEY AND THE IRISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

DEFENDANTS

[2009] IEHC 246

[No. 9400 P/2007]

THE HIGH COURT

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Dismissal of proceedings

Locus standi - Lay litigant suing multiple public figures - Plaintiff not personally affected by many matters pleaded - Complaints vague and imprecise - Some defendants enjoying immunity from suit in negligence - Whether statement of claim prolix or containing statements which were unnecessary or scandalous - Whether proceedings vexatious - Whether failure to disclose reasonable cause of action - Whether duty on court to sift through material to find claims in proper form or whether court entitled to have regard to document as a whole - Riordan v Hamilton (Unrep, Smyth J, 26/6/2000), Cahill v Sutton [1980] IR 269, Riordan v Ireland (No 5) [2001] 4 IR 463 and Faye v Tegral Pipes ltd [2005] IESC 34 [2005] 2 IR 261 applied; Beatty v Rent Tribunal [2005] IESC 66 [2006] 2 IR 191 considered - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 19, r 27 - Statement of claim struck out (2007/9400P - McGovern J - 15/5/2009) [2009] IEHC 246

Doherty v Minister for Justice

RSC O.19 r27

RSC O.19 r28

BEATTY v RENT TRIBUNAL 2006 2 IR 191 2006 1 ILRM 164 2005/4/623 2005 IESC 66

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

RIORDAN v IRELAND (NO 5) 2001 4 IR 463 2001/21/5691

FAY v TEGRAL PIPES LTD & ORS 2005 2 IR 261 2005/25/5119 2005 IESC 34

HANLY v NEWSGROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD 2004 1 IR 471 2004/21/4811 2004 IEHC 115

CAHILL v SUTTON 1980 IR 269

1 1. The plaintiff has sued the numerous defendants in this action and sets out his claims in a statement of claim running to some thirty pages. I have been informed that his action against the following defendants has been struck out or discontinued: The Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Hugh Orde, The Rev. Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness. The remaining defendants have brought motions to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim. The applications are grounded upon O. 19, r. 27 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that the statement of claim is prolix and/or contains pleadings which are unnecessary or scandalous but which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of this action; an order pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the court striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim and/or these proceedings on the grounds that they are vexatious and/or that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action; an order striking out those parts of the plaintiff's claim against the first to the fifteenth named defendants as relate to their actions as judges on the ground that same disclose no reasonable cause of action as the said claims are made in respect of acts of the said defendants in the exercise of their jurisdiction.

2 2. The plaintiff, for his part, has brought motions for judgment in default of defence against the defendants. When the motions came on for hearing before me, I adjourned the motions for judgment in default of defence pending the outcome of the defendants' application to strike out the statement of claim and/or the proceedings.

3 3. The statement of claim in this case is extraordinary in a number of respects. In the first place, it names an exceptionally large number of defendants. Secondly, the claims made by the plaintiff in the document are wide-ranging and disconnected.

4 4. A clue as to the purpose of the proceedings can be found in the affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on 21 ^st April, 2009, for the purpose of opposing the application to strike out the statement of claim and/or dismiss his action. Paragraph 2 of that affidavit reads as follows:

"This affidavit is sworn for the purpose of confirming further corruption within the legal, justice and political system …"

5 5. In an earlier affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on 27 ^th January, 2009, the following paragraphs appear:

2 2 "2. This affidavit is sworn for the purpose of clarifying the history of this case and the serious abuse of process in my attempt to expose serious wrongdoing in this country, and I say that:

3 3. this High Court Action is a bona fide action by me to expose serious wrongdoing and is in no way vexatious and frivolous."

6 6. In the course of the hearing on the motion, the plaintiff stated that he did not take this case for financial gain. He said that, "our prisons are full of innocent people who have no one to stand up for them". He also informed the court that he would like an enquiry into the abuse of the justice system.

7 7. I have already referred to the fact that the statement of claim is long and wide-ranging and I do not propose to quote from it in this judgment. A reading of the document shows that it contains a diatribe against various judges and the justice system in general, together with other complaints against various officials and bodies for not doing their duty, for not acceding to requests of the plaintiff, for ignoring complaints of...