Claim for €2 billion in damages is struck out as an abuse of process

High Court - application for orders pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court striking out the proceedings on the grounds that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or the action was frivolous and/or vexatious and/or bound to fail and/or an abuse of process - further order sought pursuant s. 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 vacating the lites pendentes which had been registered against the Defendants' interest in a property - plenary summons issued in January 2019 - plaintiff claimed for fraud, breach of GDPR rights, breach of contract, trespass and conflict of interest - lis pendens registered in February 2019 - Statement of Claim delivered in January 2020 - particulars of fraud not provided in Statement of Claim - jurisdiction to strike out to be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases - jurisdiction under rules fell to be exercised by reference to the pleadings only - court was at a loss as to what the plaintiff's cause of action was - given that the plaintiff was a lay litigant, the possibility that a stateable case might be advanced arising from the matters identified in the indorsement of claim by an application to amend the Statement of Claim was required to be considered - court refused to strike out the proceedings under the jurisdiction afforded by the Rules of the Superior Courts - inherent jurisdiction wider in scope than Rules - legal principles - affidavit evidence considered - plaintiff had issued proceedings for the purpose of registering a lis pendens but with no real intention of prosecuting the proceedings promptly - maintenance of the plaintiff's proceedings was an abuse of process of the courts - plaintiff's case bound to fail - where satisfied to strike out the proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, it was not strictly necessary to proceed to consider whether it was appropriate to make an order to vacate the lis pendens as such an order was not required where the proceedings were struck out - plaintiff had delayed in prosecuting the proceedings - delay was patently unreasonable - lis pendens could be vacated on that basis alone - proceedings struck out.