Riordan v Hamilton and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR JUSTICE THOMAS SMYTH
• Judgment Date: 26 June 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IEHC 189
• Date: 26 June 2000
• Court: High Court

RIORDAN v. HAMILTON & ORS

BETWEEN

DENIS RIORDAN

Plaintiff

AND

CHIEF JUSTICE LIAM HAMILTON, JUDGE DONAL BARRINGTON, JUDGEHENRY BARRON, JUDGE KEVIN LYNCH, JUDGE SUSAN DENHAM, JUDGE FRANCISMURPHY, JUDGE RONAN KEANE AND JUDGE HUGH O'FLAHERTY(RESIGNED)

Defendants

[2000] IEHC 189

No. 12562P/1999

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

Practice and Procedure

Practice and procedure; striking out proceedings; abuse of process; defendant seeking orders to strike plaintiff's case out and to restrain applicant from issuing any further proceedings against defendants; whether an abuse of process of the court to engage in this litigation; whether, as facts had already been litigated, plaintiff's claim should be struck out on grounds no reasonable cause of action disclosed and has no reasonable prospect of success; whether order should be granted restraining applicant from issuing any further proceedings against the defendants or any person holding the office of Judge of the Supreme Court or of the High Court; whether pleadings should be stricken from the record, in view of the contemptuous language and scandalous allegations; O.19 r.28 Rules of the Superior Courts.

Held: Relief granted.

Riordan v. Chief Justice Hamilton - High Court: Smyth J. (ex tempore) - 26/06/2000

The plaintiff had issued proceedings against a number of judges. The defendants brought a notice of motion seeking to have the plaintiff's claim dismissed on a number of grounds. Smyth J held that it would be an abuse of process to engage in the present litigation. The plaintiff's claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and accordingly would be struck out. An order would also issue restraining the plaintiff from issuing any further proceedings in the matter. The plaintiff's pleadings contained scandalous allegations and accordingly would be stricken from the record. The plaintiff would be ordered to pay the defendants their costs.

Citations:

BARRY V BUCKLEY 1981 IR 306

RSC O.19 r13

RSC O.19 r28

BLOOMER V INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND 1995 3 IR 14

BYRNE & BINCHY ANNUAL REVIEW OF IRISH LAW 1996 & 1997

CAVERN SYSTEMS (DUBLIN) LTD V CLONTARF RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION 1984 ILRM 24

MCCABE V HARDING INVESTMENTS LTD 1984 ILRM 105

SUN FAT CHAN V OSSEOUS LTD 1992 1 IR 425

MCSORLEY V O'MAHONY UNREP COSTELLO 6.11.1996 1997/5/1636

RSC O.19

RSC O.19 r27

CHRISTIE V CHRISTIE 1873 CH 499

MURRAY V EPSOM LOCAL BOARD 1897 1 CH 35

1 JUDGMENT DELIVERED EXTEMPORE BY THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE THOMAS SMYTHON 26TH JUNE 2000

APPEARANCES

PLAINTIFF IN PERSON

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

John Rogers SC

Nuala Butler BL

Instructed by

Chief State Solicitor

2 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.

3 The Notice of Motion seeks five forms of relief. The first relief soughis:

"1. An order striking out the Plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it constitutes an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court"

4 That first relief is referable to the case of Barry v Buckleyand to other cases of that nature dealing with the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

5 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 on Thursday of this week. I do not want to delay my decision in case it is decided to appeal it on Thursday. However, I do not have the slightest hesitation in dealing with the matter.

6 At the outset I want to draw attention to a number of matters, the first 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.

7 The interpretation of the facts and the use of particular words or language seems to be of some importance to the Plaintiff Mr Riordan.

8 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."

9 The matter clearly came to be considered by the Defendants under a range of headings, the first one being under the inherent jurisdiction of thecourt.

10 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 consisting 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.

11 Is it an abuse of the process that these matters have now come before the Court? Having considered the matter and the various excerpts fromthe reported cases and as reviewed...