The High Court has dismissed six proceedings brought by Anthony Coleman against Ireland, the Attorney General, the Minister for Justice and Equality and, where named, the Courts Service. Ms Justice Stack ruled on 18 January 2022 that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process.
The composite judgment concerned High Court record numbers 2018/7377P, 2018/3069P, 2018/2113P, 2018/3542P, 2019/120P and 2018/6818P. The State defendants had asked the court to strike out the cases under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and under its inherent jurisdiction. The judge considered the pleadings, allowing for Coleman’s status as a litigant in person, and the broader litigation history relevant to the inherent-jurisdiction applications.
The claims arose from Coleman’s disputes with Danske Bank and previous court proceedings, including a bank debt, a judicial review and bankruptcy proceedings. Coleman alleged, among other things, that judges or State bodies had ignored fraud or perjury, denied him fair procedures, or failed to prosecute alleged wrongdoing. The judgment records those as allegations; the court did not determine that fraud or perjury had occurred.
In the 2018/7377P case, Coleman sought €10 million and complained about a High Court judge’s handling of an injunction application. The court found the summons did not disclose a cause of action and said any challenge to the outcome should have been pursued by appeal. It also found the case sought to reopen matters addressed in earlier proceedings.
In the other five cases, the judge found the claims either incoherent, unsupported by a legally recognised cause of action, or attempts to relitigate issues already determined. One claim, for example, alleged that the High Court and Court of Appeal should have prosecuted Danske Bank. The judgment noted that those courts had no prosecutorial function. Another challenged the bankruptcy adjudication and earlier debt proceedings.
The court ordered all six sets of proceedings dismissed against the named State defendants, on both the Order 19, rule 28 and inherent-jurisdiction grounds. Although the defendants had also argued that three cases were brought without leave of the Official Assignee while Coleman was bankrupt, the judge said she did not need to decide that issue. The order therefore did not determine the bankruptcy-leave argument.