Clohessy v Legal Aid Board & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff initiated proceedings in July 2010 seeking damages on multiple grounds including misrepresentation, breach of duty, negligence, loss of opportunity, slander, unlawful imprisonment, and breaches of constitutional and human rights related to due process, fair trial, and the right to be heard before imprisonment without charge. The Plaintiff served a statement of claim in October 2010, reiterating these claims and seeking six declarations concerning actions by the Circuit Court, this Court, and the registration of a Deed of Conveyance.

Over the course of several years, the Plaintiff has brought numerous interlocutory applications and appeals, resulting in twelve orders from this Court and four from the Court of Appeal. However, the Plaintiff has never sought to amend his pleadings to expand the reliefs originally claimed.

In March 2024, the Plaintiff filed a notice of motion seeking fourteen separate reliefs, including injunctive and declaratory reliefs as well as mandamus. These reliefs were unconventional and included declarations challenging the validity of previous court orders and the jurisdiction of courts under the Courts of Justice Act 1924 ("the 1924 Act"), alleging that the Act was not validly commenced.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the 1924 Act was validly commenced and whether courts established under it have jurisdiction.
2. Whether interlocutory relief sought by the Plaintiff, including injunctive relief and declarations, is available and appropriate.
3. Whether the Court should refer a question of law to the Court of Justice of the European Union in this context.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contended that the 1924 Act was not validly commenced due to the absence of a seal at the time the Act was purportedly implemented.
• The Plaintiff sought declarations invalidating all previous court orders in these proceedings and claimed that no valid enforced statutory jurisdiction has existed for over 99 years.
• The Plaintiff requested an investigation by the European Commission, a Constitutional Referendum, and the appointment of an independent tribunal excluding Irish judiciary members due to alleged bias.
• The Plaintiff asserted that newly discovered evidence from the National Archive supports his claim regarding the invalid commencement of the 1924 Act.
• The Plaintiff sought interlocutory injunctive relief unrelated to his original claim, as well as a referral of a question of law to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff’s claims challenging the jurisdiction of the courts under the 1924 Act have been definitively rejected by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
• They argued that the Plaintiff’s new evidence is not new and was available earlier, and thus does not warrant revisiting settled legal issues.
• The Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff’s application amounts to an abuse of process.
• They opposed the interlocutory injunctive relief, asserting the Plaintiff had failed to establish a fair issue to be tried.
• The Defendants argued that there is no substantive EU law issue warranting a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the Plaintiff’s claims challenging the validity of the 1924 Act’s commencement and the jurisdiction of courts established under it. It noted that similar claims had been definitively rejected by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, relying on authoritative decisions confirming that commencement orders may be proved by extracts from official publications such as Iris Oifigiúil, and that absence of original signed orders or seals has no legal significance.

The Court found the Plaintiff’s purported new evidence regarding the absence of a seal to be neither new nor legally sufficient to revisit settled issues. The Documentary Evidence Act 1925 and related precedents provide a clear mechanism for proving commencement, which the Plaintiff’s arguments failed to undermine.

Regarding the interlocutory injunctive relief sought, the Court held that the Plaintiff failed to establish a fair issue to be tried, rendering such relief inappropriate. The Court also rejected the Plaintiff’s request to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, as no substantive EU law matter was raised.

The Court further noted that the Plaintiff’s approach amounted to an abuse of process by attempting to relitigate conclusively settled issues, which factored into its indicative view on costs.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED ALL RELIEFS SOUGHT by the Plaintiff, including interlocutory injunctive relief, declaratory reliefs related to the jurisdiction of the 1924 Act, and the request for a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the jurisdiction of the courts under the 1924 Act as valid and binding, and to prevent the Plaintiff from relitigating settled jurisdictional issues. No new precedent was established; rather, the Court reaffirmed existing authoritative rulings. The Court indicated that the Plaintiff should bear the costs of this groundless application, reflecting its view of abuse of process.