Lavery vs Minister for Justice and Equality

This case involved an appeal by Mr. Joseph Lavery against the High Court's decision to strike out his proceedings on the grounds that they were frivolous and vexatious.

TLDR:

• Mr. Lavery's lawsuit was dismissed by the High Court as frivolous and vexatious.
• Mr. Lavery appealed the decision, claiming immunity from court orders.
• The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant, Mr. Joseph Lavery, filed a plenary summons on 19th January, 2022, seeking a declaration of immunity from court summonses and orders, along with €2,000,000 in damages. His claim was based on the premise that certain procedural orders in unrelated cases conferred immunity on him.

The High Court (O'Moore J.) struck out Mr. Lavery's proceedings on 21st June, 2023, deeming them frivolous and vexatious and noting that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The court also highlighted that the proceedings were issued in breach of an Isaac Wunder order, which restrained Mr. Lavery from instituting any High Court proceedings without leave.

Mr. Lavery appealed this decision, arguing that he was entitled to immunity under Article 40.1 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the 'Treaty of Europe'. He claimed that the procedural orders in previous cases involving other litigants conferred similar immunity on him.

The Court of Appeal, presided by Mr. Justice Allen, reviewed the case and found Mr. Lavery's arguments to be without merit. The court noted that the procedural orders cited by Mr. Lavery did not confer any immunity and that his claim was fundamentally misconceived.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the necessity of having a reasonable cause of action. The court also noted that Mr. Lavery's repeated filings and disregard for court orders constituted an abuse of the judicial process.

The court further addressed the respondents' cross-appeal to extend the Isaac Wunder order against Mr. Lavery, ultimately deciding to restrain Mr. Lavery from issuing any further motions in this appeal without prior leave from the President of the Court of Appeal.

This case underscores the judiciary's commitment to preventing the misuse of legal processes and ensuring that court resources are not wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation.