The High Court struck out a self-represented plaintiff’s proceedings against a solicitor and law firm, finding that the summons disclosed no cause of action against those defendants. The court said it had no jurisdiction to hear what it considered, in substance, an attempt to appeal a final Circuit Court order and review an unappealed certificate of taxation.
The dispute arose from family proceedings in which the first defendant, identified as Ms S., obtained permission to take her and the plaintiff’s infant daughter abroad for just over three weeks in July 2007. The Circuit Court varied the District Court order on 8 June 2007. On 31 July, Judge S. O’Donnabhain struck out the plaintiff’s appeal against the District Court order, with costs to Ms S.
Wolfe & Co. Solicitors had represented Ms S. The County Registrar taxed her costs at €4,042.16 on 4 November 2008. An execution order for that amount, after deductions of €2,089.21, followed on 6 March 2009. The plaintiff later alleged that the defendants were pursuing sums not lawfully due and had misused legal process, harming his good name. He sought, among other relief, to have the costs order and taxation documents set aside, and damages.
The solicitor and firm applied to strike out the case, arguing that it disclosed no cause of action, was res judicata, frivolous or vexatious, and an abuse of process. The judge found that the costs order was final and unappealable, and that the taxation certificate had not been appealed and remained in effect. She said Ms S. was entitled to execute on the certificate when the amount due was unpaid. The court therefore could not entertain proceedings that, in substance, sought to set aside those decisions.
The plaintiff also sought permission to bring a late appeal against part of the Circuit Court order and the taxation certificate. The judge refused that application: the High Court could not permit an appeal from the Circuit Court’s decision on the District Court appeal, nor extend the time to seek review of the certificate. The review application had to be made to a Circuit Court judge within ten days.
The judge did not decide the plaintiff’s allegations that bills of costs and a timesheet were false instruments or that stamp duty involved fraud. She said the court could not make the requested criminal finding in these civil proceedings and found it unnecessary to address the stamp-duty allegation. The final order struck out the proceedings against the second and third defendants only.