Lay Litigants

ohnonotgmail

Inspired this by this article in the independent https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dont-sue-if-youre-not-ready-greasy-fries-teacher-says-hes-lost-count-of-how-many-claims-hes-brought-to-court-36649853.html

What powers do judges have in relation to serial litigators like this? It mentions that he had to give an undertaking after a previous case that he would not sue a particular business again without the approval of the court but can the court prevent him from taking ANY action without its approval? I know there is a legal term for this but for the life of me i cant remember it.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Inspired this by this article in the independent https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dont-sue-if-youre-not-ready-greasy-fries-teacher-says-hes-lost-count-of-how-many-claims-hes-brought-to-court-36649853.html

What powers do judges have in relation to serial litigators like this? It mentions that he had to give an undertaking after a previous case that he would not sue a particular business again without the approval of the court but can the court prevent him from taking ANY action without its approval? I know there is a legal term for this but for the life of me i cant remember it.

Isaac Wunder order.

And yes, the Court can make such an order of its own motion.

Losty Dublin

Welcome to the world of Freemen

ohnonotgmail

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Welcome to the world of Freemen

I didnt see anything to indicate this guy was part of that group

CeilingFly

The best way to stop such action (i'm being very careful with words here - just in case) by a person is to enforce fully costs awarded against them including judgement.

Steviesol

Lay Litigants are rife in Family Law in Ireland. They make application after application, just to control their ex. It is quite astounding, came across one recently 140 days in court, and that is with an isaac wunder order in place.

Losty Dublin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I didnt see anything to indicate this guy was part of that group

I know of said gentleman from that aforementioned case. He's colourful to say the least.

coylemj

Isn't there scope whereby a defendant can point to the weakness of the plaintiff's case or, in the case of people like this guy, that he is a serial litigant who specialises in losing frivolous cases and ask for money to be lodged as security for costs?

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

Isn't there scope whereby a defendant can point to the weakness of the plaintiff's case or, in the case of people like this guy, that he is a serial litigant who specialises in losing frivolous cases and ask for money to be lodged as security for costs?

Yes, there is. That's the kind of case you put when you're asking the court to make an Isaac Wunder order.

whippet

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I know of said gentleman from that aforementioned case. He's colourful to say the least.

he was on Joe Duffy yesterday .. strange contribution to the show; I even think Joe was wondering what he was talking about.

ohnonotgmail

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I know of said gentleman from that aforementioned case. He's colourful to say the least.

He got 3% in an FE1 so clearly a studious legal mind. Mind you that is 3% more than me

Samuel T. Cogley

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He got 3% in an FE1 so clearly a studious legal mind. Mind you that is 3% more than me

Me too!

NUTLEY BOY

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He got 3% in an FE1 so clearly a studious legal mind. Mind you that is 3% more than me

I think that was on the Equity paper ?

Did you hear what he said that he scored on the repeat exam ?

osarusan

Somewhat related...I was a visitor to court on a day when somebody was being prosecuted for blocking the Limerick tunnel.

He informed the court he would be representing himself, and that he felt he had the ability to do so...to which the judge replied, "Oh do you now..." and then after perfect comic pause, "Well fair play to you."

First thing he asked the judge was if the judge had already read the case notes, and the judge had to explain to him that it doesn't work that way - the judge will hear the evidence in court, rather than before, and it is up to both sides to present it.

The guy didn't know what to say to that, literally just stood there.

ohnonotgmail

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I think that was on the Equity paper ?

Did you hear what he said that he scored on the repeat exam ?

Go on, give me a laugh

NUTLEY BOY

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Go on, give me a laugh

I believe it was less that 3% but more than 1%................

That said, he seems to be a very smart chap as he appears to have a number of third level degrees.

ohnonotgmail

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I believe it was less that 3% but more than 1%................

That said, he seems to be a very smart chap as he appears to have a number of third level degrees.

how do you even get a mark that low in an exam?

4ensic15

coylemj wrote: »

Isn't there scope whereby a defendant can point to the weakness of the plaintiff's case or, in the case of people like this guy, that he is a serial litigant who specialises in losing frivolous cases and ask for money to be lodged as security for costs?

Weakness in the case isn't sufficient. To get an early dismissal, it has to be shown that even taken at its highest, the case is doomed.

UrbanFox

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I believe it was less that 3% but more than 1%................

That said, he seems to be a very smart chap as he appears to have a number of third level degrees.

Listen back to the RTE player from 13 minutes in.

Link https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F21325031%5F53%5F27%2D02%2D2018%5F

He definitely says that he scored 3% in Equity and then 2% on the repeat exam.

He is a qualified secondary teacher (English, History, Drama and something else I didn't catch) plus H. Dip plus two masters degrees !

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

Isn't there scope whereby a defendant can point to the weakness of the plaintiff's case or, in the case of people like this guy, that he is a serial litigant who specialises in losing frivolous cases and ask for money to be lodged as security for costs?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, there is. That's the kind of case you put when you're asking the court to make an Isaac Wunder order.

I wasn't thinking of an application for an Isaac Wunder order. I'm thinking of a case which is about to start and where there is no attempt to shut it down but where the plaintiff asks for money to be lodged as security for costs i.e. let the case be heard but make the guy lodge money to protect me from the legal expenses I will incur in winning this frivolous case which (being essentially an ego trip) he will drag out over several days.

So without getting into Isaac Wunder territory, can you get an order forcing the other side to lodge money for costs?

4ensic15

coylemj wrote: »

I wasn't thinking of an application for an Isaac Wunder order. I'm thinking of a case which is about to start and where there is no attempt to shut it down but where the plaintiff asks for money to be lodged as security for costs i.e. let the case be heard but make the guy lodge money to protect me from the legal expenses I will incur in winning this frivolous case which (being essentially an ego trip) he will drag out over several days.

So without getting into Isaac Wunder territory, can you get an order forcing the other side to lodge money for costs?

It is possible, but difficult to get such an order. It is easier to get against a company or a foreign citizen.

Graham

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how do you even get a mark that low in an exam?

spell your name wrong and leave everything else blank.

ED E

I was gonna tweet about same when the articles first broke - then decided better of it.

Lets just say somebody would fit well in a Disney castle....