The High Court has struck out Thomas Talbot’s claims against his former employer in two sets of proceedings, finding that they disclosed no properly pleaded cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious. It also ordered that he could not bring further proceedings against the company, or its servants and agents, without the court’s leave.
In a judgment delivered on 25 October 2012, Ms Justice Dunne considered applications by the company in proceedings issued in 2007 and 2009. The company sought to have both claims dismissed as an abuse of process and to require court permission before Mr Talbot could bring further proceedings against it.
The judge said Mr Talbot’s pleadings contained more detail about his employment grievances than earlier filings, but still did not set out a coherent, properly particularised claim. The complaints went back to 1973 and concerned employment terms and conditions. The judgment noted that Mr Talbot had used internal appeals and brought matters before the Labour Court and the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
The court reviewed earlier litigation. Mr Talbot’s 2006 proceedings had been struck out in January 2007. In the 2007 case, the High Court struck out the claim against the union; the Supreme Court later upheld that decision, which concerned the union only. In the 2009 proceedings, the claims against the solicitors and the union had already been struck out, and the remaining matter before Justice Dunne was the company’s application concerning its own claim.
The judge also considered the history of repeated proceedings and Mr Talbot’s attempt to add back parties whose claims had been struck out. She concluded that the later pleadings and conduct had not produced a maintainable claim against the company, and that the proceedings were an abuse of the court’s process. The court therefore granted the company’s applications to strike out the claims and to restrain further proceedings against the company and its servants or agents without leave.
The judgment does not state that the underlying employment allegations were tried or determined on their merits. The orders addressed whether the claims could proceed in their pleaded form and whether further proceedings could be brought without permission.