The High Court has struck out claims against eight defendants sued by a man following prolonged family law proceedings involving his former wife and their two children.
J.O’N. sued nine people, including his former wife's barrister and solicitor, a county registrar, two general practitioners, a proposed guardian ad litem, a relationship counsellor and his former wife. The sixth defendant, described as a social worker, did not bring a motion and was not part of the applications decided.
The litigation was triggered, the plaintiff said, by a Circuit Court decision in January 2011 to appoint a guardian ad litem for the children. That appointment was later suspended and reversed after a jurisdictional issue arose because the relevant statutory provision had not been commenced. The proposed guardian met one child once but produced no report and gave no evidence.
Mr Justice Birmingham stressed that striking out proceedings is a power to be exercised cautiously, particularly where a litigant represents himself. However, he found fundamental legal defects across the claims.
Claims based on statements made by lawyers and reports prepared for court proceedings could not succeed because the Defamation Act 2009 gives absolute privilege to statements made in judicial proceedings. The court also held that lawyers acting for the opposing party did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care in the manner alleged.
Claims for stress and mental trauma faced a separate obstacle because no Personal Injuries Assessment Board authorisation had been obtained. Other allegations against doctors and the proposed guardian either disclosed no actionable loss or conflicted with existing Circuit Court orders.
The judge also rejected allegations against the county registrar and found no stateable case of deceit or misfeasance in public office.
The court concluded that the proceedings against the eight moving defendants were vexatious in the legal sense, bound to fail and an abuse of process. Those claims were struck out. No determination was made on the sixth defendant, who had not sought dismissal.