Affirmation of the Validity of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 and Limits on Interlocutory Challenges: Clohessy v Legal Aid Board

Introduction

The High Court decision in Clohessy v Legal Aid Board & Ors [2025] IEHC 225, delivered by Ms Justice Bolger on 11 April 2025, arises from long-running proceedings initiated by Patrick Clohessy in July 2010. Mr Clohessy sought damages and various declarations against multiple defendants—including the Legal Aid Board, the County Register for Cork, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, and the Attorney General—on grounds of misrepresentation, negligence, constitutional breaches, unlawful imprisonment, and challenges to the validity of judicial authority under the Courts of Justice Act 1924 (“the 1924 Act”). Over the years the plaintiff has made twelve interlocutory applications in the High Court and four successful appeals to the Court of Appeal, yet never amended his original pleadings to reflect new issues. In March 2024, he returned with an exceptionally broad interlocutory motion challenging for the third time the valid commencement of the 1924 Act and seeking injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief never previously pleaded. This judgment refuses all reliefs, reaffirms the binding authority of prior appellate decisions, and underscores the doctrine of finality and abuse of process in interlocutory applications.

Summary of the Judgment

Ms Justice Bolger dismissed every head of relief sought. She held that:

No valid basis exists to challenge the commencement or jurisdictional operation of the 1924 Act, a point decisively settled by the Supreme Court in AC v Hickey & Ors [2019] IESC 73 and by the Court of Appeal in Coleman v Clohessy [2022] IECA 279.
The asserted “new evidence” regarding the absence of a seal at commencement is neither new nor material, and does not override the Documentary Evidence Act 1925 or appellate findings.
The plaintiff failed to establish a fair issue to be tried on his broader interlocutory injunctive relief, much of which fell outside his pleadings and is unknown to law.
There was no proper foundation for a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union, as no substantive EU law question was raised.
Challenged points on counsel’s right of audience were irrelevant and unpleaded.
The application constituted an abuse of process warranting a costs order against the plaintiff under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment relies heavily on two pivotal authorities:

AC v Hickey & Ors [2019] IESC 73: The Supreme Court held at paragraph 215 that commencement orders for the 1924 Act may be proved via extracts from Iris Oifigiúil under section 4 of the Documentary Evidence Act 1925. The absence of an original signed instrument does not undermine the Act’s validity.
Coleman v Clohessy [2022] IECA 279: Collins J. affirmed that published copies of commencement orders in official Statutory Rules and Stationery Office volumes constitute prima facie evidence under ss. 4(1) and (5) of the Documentary Evidence Act 1925. The inability to locate an original does not cast doubt on the Act’s commencement.

Both decisions reject any challenge based on technicalities of seal or enrolment and firmly establish that the 1924 Act has been lawfully in effect since 5 June 1924.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three stages:

Res Judicata and Binding Authority: The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have conclusively decided the jurisdictional issue. Under the doctrine of res judicata (issue estoppel), a trial court cannot re-litigate points already adjudicated by higher courts.
Abuse of Process: The motion re-raises matters that were available to the plaintiff for years, without any new, decisive evidence. Pursuing such groundless challenges in interlocutory form—especially without amending the pleadings—constitutes an abuse of the court’s processes.
Interlocutory Relief Principles: Interlocutory applications must seek relief within the scope of pleaded issues and establish a “fair issue to be tried.” Mr Clohessy’s sprawling motion fell outside his original claims, and he failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or prima facie entitlement to injunctive, declaratory, or mandamus relief at the interlocutory stage.

Impact

This judgment reinforces several key principles:

Finality of Litigation: Parties cannot repeatedly challenge jurisdictional foundations once settled by appellate courts. This preserves judicial resources and protects defendants from perpetual litigation.
Limits on Interlocutory Applications: Courts will not entertain novel reliefs not grounded in the pleadings or unsupported by fresh, material evidence.
Documentary Evidence Act 1925: The Act remains the definitive mechanism for proving commencement of historic statutes, negating technical objections about missing original documents.
Cost Consequences for Groundless Motions: The decision underscores that frivolous interlocutory motions can give rise to adverse cost orders and expose litigants to findings of abuse of process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Res Judicata (Issue Estoppel): Once a court of competent jurisdiction has decided an issue, the same parties cannot litigate it again in subsequent proceedings.
Interlocutory Relief: Temporary measures (injunctions, declarations, mandamus) granted during litigation, which require a clear connection to the pleadings and a plausible triable issue.
Documentary Evidence Act 1925: Legislation providing that official publications (e.g., Iris Oifigiúil) are prima facie proof of governmental instruments without requiring original signatures or seals.
Abuse of Process: Misuse of the court’s procedures to harass opponents or litigate issues already decided, warranting dismissal and cost penalties.

Conclusion

Clohessy v Legal Aid Board affirms that the Courts of Justice Act 1924 was validly commenced and that the Documentary Evidence Act 1925 provides unassailable proof of its operation. It underscores the finality of appellate decisions and curbs abusive interlocutory tactics by requiring motions to remain within pleaded issues and to present bona fide new evidence. This decision will guide practitioners and litigants in framing interlocutory applications, seeking amendments to pleadings when introducing new issues, and respecting the binding authority of higher courts. It marks a clear rebuke of re-litigation over jurisdictional technicalities and fortifies the principles of judicial economy and process integrity.