The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Leahy’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing him leave to seek judicial review of a Circuit Court order that dismissed his action against Tippo International Limited and Anderson & Gallagher Solicitors.
In a judgment delivered on 18 January 2023, Mr Justice Allen said Leahy had not identified an error in the High Court’s decision. The appeal concerned whether there was an arguable case that the Circuit Court order of 14 July 2020 was made without jurisdiction or in excess of it. It was not an appeal on the merits of that order.
Leahy’s 2020 action alleged that Tippo had wrongly paid €49,796 into court under an order obtained by Michael Doyle, who had secured a judgment against Leahy for €29,796 plus costs. Leahy also alleged that Anderson & Gallagher had been negligent in advising Tippo to make the payment. The companies’ motions to dismiss argued that the claim disclosed no cause of action; Tippo also argued it was frivolous and vexatious. Those were the defendants’ submissions, not findings made in this appeal.
On 14 July 2020, the Circuit Court judge granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and refused Leahy’s motion for judgment in default of defence. The judge awarded the defendants the costs of their motions and made no order on the costs of Leahy’s motion. Leahy then sought judicial review, arguing, among other things, that the motions were heard unfairly and should not have been decided before the defendants filed defences.
The High Court refused leave in July 2021, finding no arguable ground. The Court of Appeal agreed that the Circuit Court could hear and decide motions to dismiss before requiring defences. It also upheld the High Court’s assessment that Leahy had received the motions in time to file a replying affidavit and had been alerted that they might be heard alongside his own motion. He had not explained why he did not file an affidavit before the hearing.
Leahy also sought to raise bias, but the Court of Appeal said bias was absent from his original grounds and supporting affidavit and could not be introduced later in that application. It did not resolve a separate disagreement between earlier Court of Appeal decisions about how a Circuit Court judge should be named in judicial review proceedings, saying that issue had no bearing on the order under appeal.
The appeal was dismissed. The notice parties were presumptively entitled to their appeal costs. The court allowed Leahy 14 days to file brief submissions if he wished to argue for a different costs order, with the notice parties then allowed 14 days to respond. The judgment does not state the final costs determination.