[25] All five lawyers are members of the Lerners firm in London. In the statement of claim the plaintiff claims against these defendants “damages for breach of solicitors undertaking, of confidential email, and defamation.”
[26] These allegations are primarily directed at Murray, who was retained by the Chrisjohn family after their claim was administratively struck. The only allegations in the statement of claim in any way related to Lerner, Moses, Schenke and Dantzer concern a letter sent to them by the plaintiff which stated in the header “Private and Confidential of the Highest Order -Without Prejudice”, which the Defendants “unlawfully disseminated, disclosed, distributed and copied”. In fact, the letter contained no “without prejudice” information and was instead a disgraceful and insulting rant that any lawyer should be ashamed to put his name to.
[27] As for the claims against Murray, namely the breach of solicitors undertaking and defamation, neither can stand. The plaintiff’s claim that Murray breached a solicitor’s undertaking to protect the plaintiff’s contingency fee account is not tenable at law. As there has been no settlement or payment to the plaintiff, even if there was an undertaking to protect the plaintiff’s account there would be no fees payable to the plaintiff, and therefore no damages have resulted from the alleged breach of the undertaking.
[28] The defamation claim is also doomed. The statement of claim fails to provide even the most basic particulars with respect to this cause of action. The reader is unable to determine what words or statements the plaintiff alleges were defamatory, when they were allegedly made or by whom.
[29] As all these allegations are patently ridiculous and incapable of proof, their actions will be struck without leave to amend.
[41] In sum, I conclude that the statement of claim should be struck in its entirety, against all defendants, and without leave to amend.
[42] This action is utterly unmeritorious and has been a complete waste of time and resources for both the court and numerous defence counsel involved. Before this motion proceeded the plaintiff was invited on several occasions to withdraw or improve his claim, but instead responded primarily with profanity and abuse.
[43] Further such behaviour is to be strongly discouraged. The plaintiff shall therefore pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis, adjusted by me to reflect reasonable hours, as follows: