The High Court struck out the first 10 paragraphs of a man’s statement of claim against two solicitors and ordered that he be restrained from bringing further proceedings against them, describing his action as an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate family law proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 4 June 2010, Mr Justice Lavan said the court could not proceed with the case. The order striking out paragraphs 1–10 was made because they were unnecessary, scandalous and tended to prejudice and embarrass the defendants. The judge also made an order commonly known as an Isaac Wunder order, restraining the plaintiff from bringing further proceedings against the two named defendants.
The plaintiff had claimed €6 million in damages, alleging that the solicitors, who acted for his former spouse in separation proceedings, conspired with her to defraud him of money and property. The allegations were claims made by the plaintiff; the defendants denied criminal or reprehensible conduct and said they had acted honourably and professionally.
The defendants applied to strike out the action under the Rules of the Superior Courts or the court’s inherent jurisdiction. They argued that the claim had no stateable cause of action, relied on unsupported assertions and sought to challenge the outcome of earlier family law proceedings. Their counsel also told the court that the plaintiff had issued separate proceedings in the name of his infant son and against his former spouse, and had threatened proceedings against a psychiatrist. Those were submissions recorded in the judgment.
The plaintiff represented himself and made no written submissions. The judgment says his oral submissions focused on the history of the family law case. That case, initiated in 2000, had occupied the court for more than 100 days over more than five years. A final separation order was granted on 4 August 2004. A Catholic Church tribunal later issued a decree of nullity on 11 April 2005.
Justice Lavan acknowledged that the inherent power to strike out proceedings must be used sparingly. He concluded that the plaintiff’s submissions were dominated by the earlier family law proceedings and that his remaining arguments were unsubstantiated allegations without a factual basis. The court treated the claim as a collateral attempt to relitigate the earlier case.
The judgment records the strike-out of paragraphs 1–10 and the restraint against further proceedings against the two defendants. It does not state that the entire action was dismissed, nor does the source set out any order for damages or costs.