The proceedings had arisen from the plaintiff's dismissal by his former employer, the Courts Service, in September 2008, following which the plaintiff brought an unfair dismissal claim before the Employment Appeals Tribunal (the "EAT"). The original EAT proceedings were withdrawn by the plaintiff while at hearing on the basis that he felt he was not receiving a fair hearing. The plaintiff also brought wrongful dismissal proceedings in connection with the same dismissal but these were subsequently struck out because the Court determined the plaintiff was precluded from bringing such proceedings having already instituted an unfair dismissal claim before the EAT.

The decision regarding the wrongful dismissal was appealed to the Court of Appeal, however the plaintiff took exception to the composition of the Court of Appeal as the then President of the Court of Appeal was a member of the board of his former employer. Accordingly, the plaintiff believed it was not possible to convene an independent hearing and invited the entire Court to recuse itself. The Court was unwilling to recuse itself and the plaintiff did not prosecute his appeal. The plaintiff then issued proceedings by way of plenary summons, subject to these proceedings, in which the plaintiff claimed exemplary and punitive damages of €1.5 million arising out of the substantial damage and loss caused by servants and/or agents of the State.

He claimed that he was denied justice and redress in accordance with unfair dismissal legislation, in breach of EU law and his human rights. He also claimed that he was denied due process, fairness and natural and constitutional justice. He alleged that he was forced to withdraw his claim before the EAT due to the conduct of the servants of the State in failing to allow him to examine relevant persons, that the process was corrupt and the EAT was in breach of their own duties and obligations and/ or remit. He claims that the chair of the EAT "proceeded to trample" on his rights and that the Director of the Courts Service acted as judge in his own cause.

The High Court held that the defendants were entitled to succeed with their application to dismiss the proceedings as they were frivolous and vexatious. The High Court also noted that the pleadings were anything but clear and succinct and appear to be grounded in historical allegations of breaches of fair procedures. They found that if the plaintiff had not withdrawn his claim before the EAT he would have had available to him an appropriate remedy and it was not open to him now to construct another claim which is derived from his complaints about the manner in which the EAT dealt with his claim. The High Court decided that the proceedings should be struck out.
https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2018/H479.html