The High Court has struck out three sets of proceedings brought by an anonymised plaintiff against State bodies and the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, finding the claims were an abuse of process or had no reasonable chance of success. It refused applications to require the plaintiff to obtain prior permission before bringing further proceedings against the defendants.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell delivered the judgment on 22 October 2024. The cases arose from family law proceedings concerning the plaintiff’s separated relationship with his former wife and their child. The court said the underlying dispute included ongoing issues about access and maintenance. The family law proceedings themselves were not under appeal in these applications.
In the first case, the plaintiff sought to set aside orders arising from the family proceedings and damages, alleging that he had been denied fair procedures and access to his child. The court found the claim was an impermissible collateral challenge to decisions already considered by the High Court on appeal in 2020. It also concluded that any challenge based on alleged procedural unfairness should have been brought through judicial review within the applicable time limit. The court further held that the State could not be held vicariously liable in the tort action for judges’ conduct.
The second case concerned the plaintiff’s objection to religious instruction at the child’s school. He sought damages and an order directing State defendants to invoke legislation against the school, which was not a party to the case. The judge found the claim did not establish a legal duty requiring the Minister for Education or the other defendants to intervene in a dispute between parents and a school. The judgment said education arrangements for the child could be addressed in the family law proceedings.
The third case challenged the LSRA’s handling of complaints about legal practitioners involved in the family proceedings. The court relied on section 209 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, which bars damages claims against the Authority and the State for relevant acts or omissions unless they were done in bad faith. The judge found no claim or cogent evidence of bad faith and struck out the case as bound to fail.
The defendants also sought orders restricting the plaintiff from starting further cases without prior permission. The judge said the issue was finely balanced but the exceptional threshold for such restrictions had not been met. He noted that the plaintiff had not, so far as could be ascertained, started other legal actions, and warned that further baseless proceedings or attempts to relitigate decided issues could lead to restrictions in an appropriate case.
The court said it would hear only costs and the form of final orders at a further listing on 30 October 2024.