or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court strikes out claims against a solicitor and firm, and against a bank and its employees, servants and/or agents, on the grounds that they are frivolous, vexatious and have no reasonable prospect of success, and had been determined in previous High Court proceedings.
Application to dismiss proceedings as being frivolous, vexatious and/or bound to fail - claimed that a solicitor wrongly joined him as a defendant in summary summons proceedings months after the trial of that action – claimed that the bank and its employees did egregiously trespass against the plaintiff and his rights – background - proceedings amounted to a collateral attack on the final orders made in the previous proceedings – abuse of process - doctrine of estoppel – plaintiff suing an unlicensed bank – jurisdiction of the High Court to strike out proceedings – previous High Court decision made it clear that the solicitor and her firm did not act on an independent basis in their application to join the plaintiff to the proceedings between the bank – solicitor and her firm acted with the authority and the instructions of the bank - plaintiff appeared before the High Court after he was properly joined to the McQuaid litigation on the application of the bank, after the plaintiff decided to meddle in the ongoing issues between the bank and the defendant – criminal contempt - not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the proceedings brought by the bank against the plaintiff were brought by “rogue employees or solicitors” - no underlying wrongdoing by any servant or agent of the bank as pleaded – address of deponents - claims struck out as they are frivolous, vexatious and have no reasonable prospect of success.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.