The High Court struck out Daniel Doherty’s statement of claim against dozens of defendants, finding that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was prolix, scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
In a judgment delivered on 15 May 2009, Mr Justice Brian McGovern said the claim named an exceptionally large number of defendants and raised wide-ranging, disconnected complaints. The defendants had applied to strike out the pleading under the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. Doherty had also sought judgment in default of defence, but those motions had been adjourned pending the defendants’ application.
The judge described the statement of claim as a narrative of complaints about judges, public officials and the justice system. He said many allegations concerned events in which Doherty was not involved, while others were vague, imprecise or directed at conduct by officials acting within their jurisdiction. Doherty had conceded that he had not brought judicial review proceedings against any of the defendants.
The court accepted the defendants’ legal submissions. It said claims concerning judges and public officials acting bona fide within their jurisdiction were affected by immunity, and that claims of corrupt or dishonest conduct could not succeed without showing the officials had not acted bona fide within their jurisdiction. The judge considered many complaints anecdotal and brought for an improper or ulterior purpose, including to cause embarrassment and vexation. He also said Doherty had not set out the duties each defendant owed him, how they were breached or the consequences, and had not established standing to pursue complaints concerning third parties.
The judgment records that Doherty said he was not seeking financial gain, that he wanted an inquiry into abuse of the justice system, and that the action was intended to expose wrongdoing. Those were his stated reasons; the court’s ruling concerned the form and legal sufficiency of the pleading.
The court ordered the statement of claim struck out. The judgment does not record an order striking out the proceedings themselves, nor does it state a final decision on Doherty’s motions for judgment in default of defence.