Doherty -v- MJELR & Ors, [2009] IEHC 246 (2009)

Docket Number:2007 9400 P
Party Name:Doherty, MJELR & Ors
Judge:McGovern J.
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE HIGH COURT2007 9400 P

BETWEEN

DANIEL DOHERTYPLAINTIFFAND

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

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 COMMISSIONDEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian McGovern delivered on the 15th day of May 2009

  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. 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. The statement of claim in this case is extraordinary in a number of respects. In the first place, it names an exceptionally large...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL