O'Hara v Ireland & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns proceedings brought by Plaintiff, who is self-represented, seeking damages of €2 million based on a claim that he is immune from all court summonses and court orders under certain constitutional provisions and European treaties. The claim alleges that various State actors and officials failed to comply with court orders and that the Plaintiff shares the same immunity as these officials. The proceedings were initiated against multiple Defendants, including Company A (Start Mortgages). The Defendant Company A sought to strike out the proceedings against it on grounds that they are frivolous, vexatious, disclose no reasonable cause of action, and constitute an abuse of process. The motion to strike out was opposed by Plaintiff, who made unfounded allegations against the solicitor representing Company A. The Court refused to adjourn the strike out motion to hear it alongside a separate motion unrelated to Company A and proceeded to consider the merits of the strike out application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action or whether the claim is bound to fail and constitutes an abuse of process.
2. Whether the proceedings against Company A should be struck out pursuant to Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant Company A's Arguments

• The proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
• The Plaintiff’s claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is bound to fail.
• The claim was issued as a retaliatory attack intended to embarrass Company A.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• Denied the allegations that the proceedings were intended to embarrass Company A.
• Alleged that the solicitor for Company A committed perjury and treason, and challenged her to prosecute him for perjury to validate the motion to strike out.
• Reiterated the claim that he is immune from court summons and orders under constitutional and European law provisions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged the high constitutional value placed on access to the courts, requiring a high threshold before striking out a claim. The Court applied the principles summarized in Towey, including taking the Plaintiff’s claim at its highest and ensuring that the claim cannot succeed under any circumstance. The Court found the Plaintiff’s claim to be a "phenomenally far-ranging proposition" lacking any attempt to establish a stateable cause of action. The claim that the Plaintiff is immune from all court summonses and orders is inherently illogical, especially as the Plaintiff simultaneously seeks relief from the Court. The Court held that the claim is frivolous, vexatious, and constitutes an abuse of process. The Plaintiff’s unfounded and extreme allegations against the solicitor for Company A further illustrated the disconnection from legal reality. Consequently, the Court concluded that the proceedings should be dismissed against Company A under Order 19, rule 28 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the proceedings against Defendant Company A (Start Mortgages) on the grounds that the claim is frivolous, vexatious, discloses no reasonable cause of action, and constitutes an abuse of process.

The direct effect of this decision is the termination of the claim against Company A. The Court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed existing principles against meritless claims that burden the court system and impede genuine legal disputes.