The High Court dismissed Joseph Lavery’s proceedings against several defendants, finding they were issued in breach of an order requiring him to obtain leave before bringing High Court proceedings. The court also found the claim was bound to fail, disclosed no legitimate cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.
In a judgment delivered on 19 May 2023, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore considered three motions seeking dismissal or striking out of the case. Lavery’s plenary summons was the only pleading he had delivered; he had not filed a statement of claim. It sought declarations based on his assertion that he was immune from court summonses and orders, and claimed €2 million in damages.
Lavery did not attend the motions hearing on 16 March. In an email, he cited injuries to his right hand, alleged perjury by people who had sworn affidavits supporting the motions, and argued that a decision in another case meant his own case had already been won. The judge said the medical certificate stated that Lavery was unfit for work but did not say he could not attend court. He found no basis in the affidavits to support the perjury allegations and said the reasons given did not justify an adjournment. The motions proceeded.
The judge reviewed a 4 July 2016 order by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys restraining Lavery from instituting High Court proceedings or issuing and serving motions without a High Court judge’s leave. The court found no evidence that leave had been sought or granted for this case. A Courts Service official had apologised for the proceedings being issued despite the order, saying the system had failed to flag Lavery’s papers. The judge said the resulting costs and effort could have been avoided, while observing that Lavery was primarily responsible for them.
The judge also considered whether leave should have been granted. Citing earlier High Court decisions rejecting similar claims of immunity from court orders and summonses, he found that Lavery’s proceedings could not succeed. He concluded that leave would not have been granted even if it had been sought.
The court dismissed the proceedings on both grounds: breach of the 2016 order and abuse of process. The action was listed for mention on 21 June 2023 to address outstanding matters, including the costs of the motions and proceedings; the judgment did not determine those costs.