High Court: Courts should not tolerate legal quackery adopted by pressure groups

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Citing Tracey v Burton IESC 16, Justice Noonan also noted that “the days of reading things into the record, if they ever existed, have long since passed”.

Courts have a duty to protect their own processes from manifest abuse of this kind for the benefit of genuine litigants with genuine claims.

Criticising the “overwhelming miasma of fake law” and the use of “metaphysical concepts… introduced to suggest that the money never actually existed” Justice Noonan explained that affidavits of this type were increasingly common in the aftermath of the economic collapse.

Furthermore, the often-misguided display of “extraordinary knowledge of the minutiae of statutes, court rules, EU and case law” in Mr Martin’s affidavits were in contravention of the Rules of the Superior Courts – particularly Order 40 rule 4 which states that affidavits must be confined to such facts as the witness is able of his own knowledge to prove”.

Such blatant disregard of the Rules, by “litigants in person assisted by agenda driven pressure groups and individuals providing McKenzie friend services for reward” could not be overlooked in the same way as it would normally be in the case of litigants in person doing their best to put forward their case.

Justice Noonan noted that there were “many legal resources available at little or no cost to litigants” and emphasised that the courts, “already overburdened with an ever-increasing case load of genuine cases”, should no longer “indulge and tolerate the mode of litigation that this case typifies, engendered solely for the purpose of an anarchic attempt to frustrate and obstruct the administration of justice”.

Conclusion

Satisfied that Mr and Mrs Martin had advanced “nothing remotely approaching an arguable defence” to meet the test in Aer Rianta v Ryanair, Justice Noonan held that the bank’s proofs were in order, there was nothing that would amount to an unfair contract term within the meaning of the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulation 1995 and were therefore entitled to the judgment of €90,000.