Houston v Reynolds & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a practising barrister since 2008, initiated proceedings on 11 December 2020 by issuing a plenary summons against the Defendants, including a sitting High Court judge (the first Defendant), the State, and the Attorney General. The action arose from the conduct of the first Defendant in open court during prior proceedings ("Houston v Doyle") in which the Plaintiff was acting for herself. The Plaintiff alleged claims including defamation, trespass to the person, misfeasance in public office, and stated misconduct, seeking damages and declarations.

The Plaintiff initially engaged solicitors but later discharged them, representing herself thereafter. The Defendants applied to strike out the Plaintiff's pleadings on grounds that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were frivolous, vexatious, bound to fail, or an abuse of process. The hearing of this application commenced in October 2023 and resumed in December 2023.

The Plaintiff's claims principally relate to the first Defendant's conduct during various hearings in the "Houston v Doyle" proceedings, including a hearing on 3 December 2019. The Court of Appeal had previously considered appeals arising from those proceedings, dismissing most of the Plaintiff's appeals and affirming the first Defendant's decisions, except for setting aside an Isaac Wunder order.

The Plaintiff sought access to audio recordings of the prior hearings and attempted to cross-examine a solicitor for the Defendants regarding the tone and atmosphere of those hearings. The Court directed the Plaintiff to identify specific transcript portions to support her claims, but the Plaintiff failed to comply. The Plaintiff also made an application for the presiding judge in the present proceedings to recuse himself on grounds of objective bias, which was refused.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff's pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants.
2. Whether the Plaintiff's action is frivolous, vexatious, bound to fail, or an abuse of process.
3. Whether the Court should strike out unnecessary or scandalous pleadings under Order 19, rule 27 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
4. Whether the Plaintiff's application for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is warranted.
5. Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself on grounds of objective bias.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

• The pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action and the proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
• The Plaintiff's claims relate to judicial decisions that were amenable to appeal, which the Plaintiff pursued, thus providing a complete remedy.
• The Defendants rely on established legal principles regarding striking out pleadings and dismissing actions that have no prospect of success.
• The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's allegations of misconduct, including misfeasance in public office, are unsupported by credible evidence.
• The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff's invocation of constitutional and international instruments does not disclose any actionable claim and mostly seeks to relitigate matters already determined on appeal.
• The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff failed to comply with court directions regarding identification of transcript excerpts to support her claims.
• The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's request for a preliminary reference to the CJEU, asserting no necessity for such a reference to give judgment.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff seeks a preliminary reference to the CJEU on issues relating to the court's inherent jurisdiction and application of GDPR, asserting that certain national rules restricting access to justice are incompatible with EU law.
• The Plaintiff claims that the first Defendant's conduct amounted to constitutional breaches, misfeasance, and stated misconduct, including abuse of judicial office.
• The Plaintiff asserts that the Court must disapply any national rules inconsistent with EU law, relying on CJEU jurisprudence, including the Workplace Relations Case (C-378/17).
• The Plaintiff requested cross-examination of a solicitor to establish the tone and atmosphere of prior hearings, believing this would support her claims.
• Despite court directions, the Plaintiff did not identify specific transcript portions supporting her allegations.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully analyzed the Plaintiff's pleadings and the factual matrix arising from the prior "Houston v Doyle" proceedings. It noted that the Plaintiff's claims largely sought to challenge judicial decisions that were subject to appeal, which the Plaintiff pursued, with the Court of Appeal affirming most of the first Defendant's orders. The Court emphasized that such appeals provide a complete remedy, negating the basis for new causes of action against the judge.

The Court found that many allegations were either misconceived, unsupported by evidence, or amounted to attempts to relitigate matters already adjudicated. The Plaintiff's failure to comply with court directions to specify transcript excerpts supporting her claims further undermined the credibility of her case.

The Court addressed the Plaintiff's invocation of constitutional and international instruments, concluding that no reasonable cause of action arose from such claims, particularly where no clarification or substantiation was provided. The Court also rejected the Plaintiff's application for recusal, applying the objective test for bias and finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Regarding the Plaintiff's request for a preliminary reference to the CJEU, the Court exercised its discretion not to refer, finding no necessity to do so to enable judgment. The Court noted the well-established principles governing the dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, or bound to fail claims and the inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Overall, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff's proceedings disclose no reasonable cause of action, are frivolous and vexatious, and constitute an abuse of process. The Court declined to strike out specific pleadings as unnecessary or scandalous, given its decision to dismiss the entire proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The Court granted the reliefs sought by the Defendants, specifically:

The Plaintiff's plenary summons and statement of claim are struck out, and the Plaintiff's action is dismissed on the grounds that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action and that the action is frivolous and vexatious.

Alternatively, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the Plaintiff's action as bound to fail, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Plaintiff's motion seeking the audio recordings of prior hearings was struck out as no application was made at the hearing to pursue that relief.

The Plaintiff's request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union was refused.

The Court reserved costs and any other necessary orders for a subsequent hearing.

This decision directly terminates the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants and does not establish any new precedent beyond the application of well-established principles governing strike-out and dismissal of proceedings.