The High Court struck out Thomas Talbot’s proceedings against McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors and Unite the Union, finding that the claims disclosed no sustainable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious. Mr Justice Hanna also restrained Mr Talbot from bringing further proceedings against the union without the High Court’s permission.
The ruling, delivered on 8 October 2010, dealt with applications by three defendants to dismiss or strike out the proceedings. The judge adjourned generally Aviva plc’s application, noting it had not previously sought similar relief in two earlier sets of proceedings against Mr Talbot. He said it might proceed by a further application and made no decision on its merits.
Mr Talbot had issued a plenary summons followed by three documents described by him as statements of claim. The judge said he found it difficult to identify the legal complaints from those papers and Mr Talbot’s oral submissions. He concluded that the claim against the union was substantially the same as claims previously brought against it, which had been struck out. The Supreme Court had upheld the outcome of the later of those cases.
As to McCann Fitzgerald, which had represented Mr Talbot’s former wife in family law proceedings, the judge said the new documents repeated allegations made in earlier cases and sought to reopen disputes that had ended in 2002. He struck out the claim, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was unsustainable, frivolous and vexatious.
The solicitors had also sought a declaration that the issues were res judicata, meaning already finally decided, and an order requiring Mr Talbot to obtain permission before suing them again. Mr Justice Hanna refused both requests. He said the firm had not participated in the earlier judicial review proceedings and that the earlier courts had not definitively ruled on Mr Talbot’s case against it. He also considered these to be the first plenary proceedings against the firm and said there was not enough of a track record to justify restricting Mr Talbot’s right of access to the courts.
The judgment concerns applications to strike out the current proceedings; it does not determine the underlying allegations on their merits. The order against Unite applies to further proceedings against that defendant unless the High Court permits them. No equivalent restriction was made for McCann Fitzgerald, and Aviva’s application remained adjourned.