The High Court has struck out Kevin Tracey’s proceedings against the Courts Service, finding that his claim against the state body was bound to fail. The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Robert Eagar on 22 March 2019, was made under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The application followed a 2018 Supreme Court decision that allowed Tracey’s appeal against an earlier strike-out of his claim against the Courts Service. The Supreme Court had said that a fresh application based on the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction could be made. It had not decided that the claim should proceed to trial.
Tracey’s 2007 case sought damages over alleged misfeasance in public office, constitutional and human rights violations, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and other claims. He alleged that orders relating to District Court hearings in February 2006 were improperly signed or certified, and that he was not informed of one hearing. He also complained that he was denied assistance from a McKenzie friend. These were Tracey’s allegations; the judgment does not establish that the alleged wrongdoing occurred.
The Courts Service argued that the orders were copies certified by a District Court clerk and that the rules allowed a judge other than the judge who made an order to sign its copy. It also relied on its statutory role, which excludes interference with judicial functions. Tracey disputed the application and maintained that his allegations could support a claim against the Service.
Justice Eagar concluded that the complaints concerned the exercise of judicial functions and that the Courts Service had no legal responsibility for the signing of the orders while carrying out its statutory duties. The court held the proceedings against the Service were bound to fail and struck them out. It also directed that correspondence about this and Tracey’s other proceedings be sent directly to the solicitor named in the judgment, stating that service on anyone else would not be treated as good service.
The order concerned the claim against the Courts Service. The judgment does not determine the underlying allegations at trial or state that the remaining defendants’ claims were struck out by this application.