The High Court has dismissed proceedings brought by a man against the State, finding that they sought to relitigate an earlier personal injury case and were bound to fail. The court did not consider his separate motion seeking 14 forms of relief, including against entities that were not parties to the proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 11 June 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger granted the State’s application to dismiss the case under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. She said the pleaded claims were frivolous and vexatious and that the facts asserted had no credible basis. The ruling addressed whether the proceedings could continue; it did not determine the separate reliefs sought in the plaintiff’s motion.
The claims centred on a personal injury action the plaintiff had brought against his former employer. The High Court dismissed that claim in 2015, finding that he had misled an orthopaedic surgeon about a road traffic accident that had aggravated his back injury. The judge in that case also said the claim would have failed on causation, referring to a likely injury from lifting a beam at work in 2007.
The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal found that correspondence and a notice of discontinuance he had signed meant the appeal had ended by accord and satisfaction. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in 2016. It later refused a request to reopen that decision in March 2024. In that decision, the Supreme Court said the earlier High Court judgment had not found the plaintiff to be a criminal or a liar.
The current proceedings alleged numerous violations, mainly concerning the handling of the earlier case and subsequent appeals. Justice Bolger described them as a collateral attack on the earlier High Court decision. She said the plaintiff could not bring a vague claim against the State based on alleged breaches of the Constitution, EU treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights simply because he was aggrieved by decisions he had unsuccessfully challenged.
The judge said the plaintiff had referred to difficulties obtaining an interpreter but had not applied for one or sought an adjournment. He read some prepared submissions, and the court reviewed his written submissions and documents.
Justice Bolger gave an indicative view that the State was entitled to the costs of the motion and proceedings under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. She directed that the case be mentioned at 10:30am on 28 June for submissions on final orders and costs.