Factual and Procedural Background
The judicial review proceedings originate from an earlier possession action instituted in the Circuit Court by Company B as plaintiff. Company B claimed to have succeeded to the mortgagee's interest under a mortgage deed entered into between the Plaintiff and his late spouse with Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd. The mortgaged property is located at a specified address in the County of Dublin.
The Circuit Court granted an order for possession on 4 December 2023. The Plaintiff appealed this decision to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal in a written judgment delivered on 22 January 2025. Subsequently, the Plaintiff initiated judicial review proceedings on 17 April 2025 seeking to quash the High Court's decision and to remit the possession action back to the Circuit Court for a full re-hearing.
The leave application for judicial review was part-heard on 23 June 2025 and adjourned to 14 July 2025 to address the jurisdictional question of whether judicial review lies against a High Court decision. Further oral submissions were made, and the judgment was reserved until 31 July 2025.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether judicial review lies against a decision of the High Court, particularly one made in the exercise of its statutory appellate jurisdiction on appeal from the Circuit Court.
- Whether the statutory provision under section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, which declares such High Court decisions "final and conclusive and not appealable," ousts the jurisdiction to apply for judicial review in this context.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| State (Abenglen Properties Ltd) v. Dublin Corporation [1984] IR 381 |
Explains the historical development and limits of certiorari as a supervisory remedy, emphasizing it is not an appellate procedure and is discretionary. |
The court relied on this precedent to confirm that judicial review is designed to supervise inferior courts and tribunals, not to correct errors or serve as an appeal from superior courts. |
| ACC Loan Management Ltd v. Fagan [2021] IESC 20, [2021] 1 IR 781 |
Clarifies the limits of the High Court's powers when exercising statutory appellate jurisdiction over the Circuit Court. |
Used to demonstrate that the High Court retains its status as a superior court of record even when exercising appellate jurisdiction, and does not become akin to the Circuit Court. |
| Pepper Finance Corporation v. Cannon [2020] IESC 2, [2022] 1 IR 128 |
Interprets section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 regarding the finality and conclusiveness of High Court decisions on appeals from the Circuit Court. |
Supported the court's conclusion that the statutory provision precludes judicial review of such High Court decisions except in constitutional appeals to the Supreme Court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by reaffirming the well-established principle that judicial review does not lie against a superior court of record, including the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. This limitation is grounded in historical legal development, judicial comity, the principle of res judicata, and the constitutional hierarchy of courts.
The court explained that judicial review is intended to supervise inferior courts and public bodies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, not to serve as an appellate mechanism for superior courts.
The Applicant's novel argument—that judicial review should lie against the High Court when it exercises appellate jurisdiction over the Circuit Court because it is exercising the same jurisdiction as the Circuit Court—was rejected. The court emphasized that the High Court retains its character as a superior court of record and does not become an inferior court by virtue of hearing appeals.
The court further reasoned that accepting the Applicant's argument would lead to untenable consequences, such as permitting judicial review of Supreme Court decisions, which conflicts with the constitutional court hierarchy.
Additionally, the court noted that section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 provides that High Court decisions on appeal from the Circuit Court are "final and conclusive and not appealable," except for constitutional appeals to the Supreme Court. This statutory provision ousts the jurisdiction to seek judicial review of such decisions.
Consequently, even if judicial review might theoretically be available, it is precluded by statute in this context.
Holding and Implications
The court refused the application for leave to apply for judicial review.
The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff's attempt to challenge the High Court's appellate decision by way of judicial review is not permissible. The decision reinforces the principle that judicial review is not available against decisions of superior courts of record, preserving the constitutional hierarchy and finality of such courts' decisions.
No new precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing legal principles. No costs order was made given the ex parte nature of the application.