By Eoin Marsh
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Denis Riordan against orders striking out proceedings he brought against serving and former members of the court over judgments delivered in earlier cases involving him.
Riordan sought declarations that previous Supreme Court decisions were wrong and also claimed damages. The High Court had dismissed his action as an abuse of process, found that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no reasonable prospect of success, and struck out pleadings containing unnecessary and scandalous material.
The High Court also restrained Riordan from bringing further proceedings of the same type against the named defendants, or anyone holding office as a Supreme Court judge, without first obtaining leave of the court.
Mr Justice Murray, delivering the Supreme Court judgment, said the central difficulty was that Riordan was attempting to reopen matters already conclusively determined by final Supreme Court judgments.
Riordan told the appeal hearing that challenging those earlier judgments was the basis of his case, together with a damages claim. The court held that adding a claim for damages did not allow final decisions to be reopened. Those earlier rulings remained binding and conclusive.
The Supreme Court agreed that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious and amounted to an abuse of court process. It also upheld the High Court's conclusion that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
On the restriction against further proceedings, Murray J acknowledged the general right of citizens to access the courts. However, he held that in exceptional circumstances that right could be regulated to protect the proper administration of justice and public resources. The High Court had properly exercised its discretion in this case.
The Supreme Court also upheld the striking out of material in Riordan's pleadings which the High Court had regarded as contemptuous and scandalous.
The appeal was dismissed. The court additionally directed that the names and descriptions of the judicial defendants in the title of the proceedings be corrected to match the written judgment.