Serial suer;

junkyard

Has anyone here any experience of a serial suer? Someone who issues summons at a rate of knots, who has no job, no assets and generally makes people's lives a misery. Any opinions would be appreciated as to how to deal with such people.

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

Has anyone here any experience of a serial suer? Someone who issues summons at a rate of knots, who has no job, no assets and generally makes people's lives a misery. Any opinions would be appreciated as to how to deal with such people.

Put them in jail for taxing their car on an island!

If their claims are without merit you can ignore them. Unfortuantely these people do have some basis for their claim, but cannot understand the concept of "live and let live". I know of two small businesses shut down by such people, one due to a massive personal injury payout, the other becuase of a claim brought in "nuisance" due the business using power tools. The business was a set up by a small farmer in his yard and he was doing engineering work for locals as well as getting a few nice contracts here and there. He was told if he wanted to stay in business he would have to move to an industrial estate, the cheapest unit locally being about €2m.

junkyard

Any point of counter suing for stress and trauma etc.?:)

dermot_sheehan

Such a person is termed a "vexatious litigant". In the UK under s. 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 you could apply for an order to prevent someone bringing litigation without the leave of the court. You can see a list of people subject to such an order on HM courts service website.

In Ireland there is no statutory regieme like this, but the Surpeme Court confirmed in Riordan v. An Taoiseach that courts have an inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process, and can require someone to get leave before instuting an action. This was confirmed in the Maurice Kieley Case http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/AllJudgments/B57A311A563D7B6C80256CD700290B59?opendocument&COUB-6QL43R

So you could apply to the High Court for a Maurice Kieley order (I think it's called), against a vexatious litigant.

You could also seek security for costs every time an action is taken under Order 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.

dermot_sheehan

maidhc wrote:

If their claims are without merit you can ignore them.

If you ignore them they can get a default judgement even if their case is complete bollox.

junkyard

Thanks for the help maidhc and gabhain7.

Lplated

In Ireland, you apply to the Court for a 'Wunder' order, means (assuming you get your order) that the serial litigant must make application to Court before initiating any further proceedings.
Just because serial guy appears to have no assets doesn't mean you can't go after him. He must be living off something, even if that is only social welfare. You can get a garnishee order to have X amount per week taken out of his pay/welfare etc...

junkyard

Thanks for the info Lplater, the "Wunder" order was mentioned to me by someone recently and it seems my "friend" has about 100 cases against others at the moment but whenever he loses a case he gets the Judge judicially reviewed so it looks like he's going to drag every case through the courts time and time again. Any other ideas would be great, thanks again everyone for your advice.

Our man in Havana

Lplated wrote:

In Ireland, you apply to the Court for a 'Wunder' order, means (assuming you get your order) that the serial litigant must make application to Court before initiating any further proceedings.
Just because serial guy appears to have no assets doesn't mean you can't go after him. He must be living off something, even if that is only social welfare. You can get a garnishee order to have X amount per week taken out of his pay/welfare etc...

He could very simply bankrupt himself, in that case social welfare would be safe from attachment.

Anyways is it really worth it to go after him only to get €10 a month?

dermot_sheehan

junkyard wrote:

Thanks for the info Lplater, the "Wunder" order was mentioned to me by someone recently and it seems my "friend" has about 100 cases against others at the moment but whenever he loses a case he gets the Judge judicially reviewed so it looks like he's going to drag every case through the courts time and time again. Any other ideas would be great, thanks again everyone for your advice.

"Wunder order", yes forgot name, it asks you on kings inns application form if you had a wunder order made against you anywhere in the world. Presumably they don't want up and coming barristers to be too litigious ::)

If wunder order is made, litigant can't bring any action without leave of judge. Your friend wouldn't have to do anything, he doesn't have to oppose application for leave every time, he could sit back, relax, and only worry about the matter if for some reason a judge grants leave.

junkyard

By "friend" I mean the guy issuing the writs, I'm being sarcastic.:)

billy1

During the 1950s and the 1960s, Mr Isaac Wunder claimed, in six related sets of proceedings, that he was the owner of winning tickets in the Sweepstakes.


Because of the number and similar nature of the proceedings, the High Court dismissed the final set of proceedings on the basis that they were frivolous and vexatious. The Supreme Court felt the same way and made an Order directing that Mr Wunder could take no further proceedings without the permission of the Court. Although this was not the first time the Court had done this, ever since then, an Order regulating access to the Courts in that way has been known as an Isaac Wunder Order.


On 10 June 2005, the High Court made such an Order in the context of long running proceedings between Bula Limited (In Receivership) and Others.


The Order followed a successful application by the Receiver (represented by William Fry) and other Defendants to strike out the underlying action as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the Courts. This application was the culmination of a series of litigation which had previously been described by the High Court as disastrous in its scale.


Mr Justice Murphy found that the issues in the proceedings could not be re-litigated for three reasons. Firstly, it was an abuse to re-litigate matters which were already determined and the same was true for matters which could have been determined in earlier proceedings. Secondly, the claim lacked a factual foundation. Thirdly, the Supreme Court (in a previous application) had not been informed that the matter would be re-litigated and there was no reservation of rights in the Supreme Court.


The Court dismissed the proceedings as an abuse of process and, further, restrained each of the Plaintiffs from instituting any further proceedings against all of the Defendants without the prior leave of the Court.

junkyard

Thanks again everybody.