The High Court has struck out and dismissed a barrister’s action against a High Court judge, Ireland and the Attorney General, finding that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious.
In a judgment delivered on 7 February 2024, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey also dismissed the action under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, finding it was bound to fail and amounted to an abuse of process. He refused the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, saying one was not necessary to give judgment. The court also struck out her motion seeking access to audio recordings from earlier proceedings.
The action arose from the judge’s handling of earlier litigation brought by the plaintiff against a solicitor. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the judge had abused her position, infringed her rights, mishandled applications and made an Isaac Wunder order restricting further High Court proceedings without leave. She sought damages and declarations, including claims framed as defamation, trespass to the person and misfeasance in public office.
The judge had made the challenged orders in December 2019. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed most of the plaintiff’s challenges, including her appeal against dismissal of the earlier proceedings and the order refusing to add six proposed defendants. It set aside the Isaac Wunder order and affirmed the costs orders. Mr Justice Sanfey said that the appeal had corrected that order and that the earlier decisions did not provide a basis for a further cause of action.
The High Court examined transcripts of the earlier hearings. Mr Justice Sanfey said the documentary record did not support the plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct and that the Court of Appeal had found no basis to suggest the earlier hearing was unfair. He noted that the plaintiff had been invited to identify transcript passages supporting her claims but had not done so. The plaintiff did not engage with the substance of the dismissal application at the resumed hearing.
The court did not make a separate order striking out pleadings under the rule concerning unnecessary or scandalous material, saying dismissal made that unnecessary. It listed a brief hearing for 13 February 2024 on the costs of the motion and proceedings, or any other orders the parties considered necessary. The judgment does not determine those later matters.