The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by former Hibernian Insurance claims handler Thomas Talbot over the striking out of his proceedings against Amicus the Union.
Mr Talbot worked for Hibernian from 1956 until 2001. During the later years of his employment he had disputes with the company over workload, grading, pay and pension entitlements. He alleged that Amicus, which represented employees in his position, failed to protect his interests and had colluded with his employer against him.
Earlier proceedings brought by Mr Talbot against Hibernian and the union were dismissed by the High Court in January 2007 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. He issued fresh proceedings later that month and subsequently delivered seven documents purporting to set out his statement of claim.
The High Court, in a November 2007 decision by Ms Justice Irvine, concluded that the renewed claim against Amicus was bound to fail. Mr Talbot had made allegations including fraud, conspiracy, corruption, collusion and other wrongdoing, but the judge found that the pleaded facts did not support a legally maintainable claim against the union.
On appeal, Mr Justice Kearns said Mr Talbot had not identified any error in the High Court’s legal reasoning. He agreed that the pleadings were inadequately particularised and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The Supreme Court also upheld the finding that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious and could be dismissed under the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Mr Talbot separately alleged bias on the part of Ms Justice Irvine, relying partly on a minor factual error in her judgment which also appeared in written submissions made for Amicus. Mr Justice Kearns rejected that argument, finding no evidence of improper influence or hostility and noting that the error had no significance to the outcome.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal. The ruling concerned the viability of Mr Talbot’s claim against Amicus and did not determine the underlying merits of his historic employment grievances against Hibernian.