O’M -v- O’Neill Anor
Neutral citation: IEHC 273
High Court
Judgment was given by Mr Justice Lavan on June 4th, 2010.
Judgment
The court granted an application by the defendants, who are solicitors, to have proceedings claiming €6 million in damages arising out of their conduct of a family law case struck out as an abuse of process.
Background
The plaintiff married in March 1998 and a child was born in August 1999. In 2000 his wife commenced judicial separation proceedings, which continued over five years with 100 days in court.
A final separation order was granted in August 2004. The Dublin Regional Tribunal of the Catholic Church issued a decree of nullity in April 2005.
The plaintiff brought an action against Mary O’Neill and Ursula Regan, his wife’s solicitors, alleging they engaged in a criminal conspiracy with his wife to defraud him of monies and property.
He claimed €6 million in damages for their alleged criminal activities, which included them abusing their position as solicitors to extort as much money as possible with no regard for the welfare of the family as a whole.
The defendants brought a motion seeking to have the proceedings struck out, through the inherent jurisdiction of the court, on the grounds that they were an abuse of process, were frivolous or vexatious and were designed to cause scandal and opprobrium to them.
Their counsel maintained that they had behaved in an honourable and professional manner throughout, and that the invalidity of the marriage appeared to be the only material fact upon which the plaintiff relied.
He made no more than unsubstantiated bald assertions in his pleadings and the only financial damage he suffered was his liability to meet the obligations imposed on him by the court.
They said that this was an attempt to re-litigate the family law proceedings, which was a classic example of an abuse of the process of the court. The plaintiff had ample opportunity to litigate all issues relating to the breakdown of his marriage during the 100 days in court, resulting in the judicial separation decree. The marriage of the parties was recognised throughout the proceedings.
Counsel for the defendants said that the plaintiff was seeking to attack the court’s determination through an apparent attempt to establish that the Church annulment rendered the family law proceedings invalid, and was thereby a basis for the perpetuation of a fraud on him.
His claim disclosed no bona fide or stateable cause of action and should therefore be struck out. It was pointed out that the plaintiff had also caused proceedings to be issued in the name of his infant son seeking €150,000 in damages, and was suing both his wife and the psychiatrist who had prepared a report under s. 47 of the Family Law Act.
The plaintiff represented himself and did not make any written submissions.
In his oral submissions he reiterated the history of the family law case.
Decision
Mr Justice Lavan said that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to strike out proceedings must be exercised sparingly.
However, given that the plaintiff’s submissions were dominated by reference to the family law proceedings, and the remainder of the arguments were unsubstantiated allegations without basis in fact, the court could not proceed with the case. It was an attempt to re-litigate the family law proceedings and as such was an abuse of process.
He also made an Isaac Wunder order, restraining the plaintiff from bringing any further proceedings against the defendants.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie
The plaintiff represented himself; David Burke BL, instructed by Bowman McCabe, Lucan, for the respondents