The High Court has restricted Dona Sfar from bringing certain new legal proceedings without prior leave and ordered her to pay the costs of two unsuccessful judicial review applications concerning the seizure of her animals.
The orders were made by Mr Justice Twomey on 30 May 2017, at a hearing dealing with costs and the State’s application for an Isaac Wunder order. The underlying judicial reviews had challenged the seizure of animals belonging to Sfar. In its earlier judgment, the court found no grounds to challenge the seizure, which it said was justified by evidence of grave animal suffering.
The Isaac Wunder order requires Sfar to obtain prior leave from the President of the High Court, or a judge nominated by him, before starting new proceedings in any jurisdiction against the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Attorney General or Ireland. The application for leave must be made in writing to the Chief Registrar of the High Court.
The court also imposed a leave requirement for new proceedings against any person holding judicial office in the Supreme, Appeal, High, Circuit or District Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or a government minister. The same leave process applies. The order covers only proceedings issued after 30 May 2017. The judgment says Sfar may appeal this decision without seeking leave, and describes the order as a filter that should not prevent proceedings with some prospect of success.
In reaching its decision, the court referred to Sfar’s litigation concerning the animals and to emails in which she continued to seek their return after the earlier judicial review judgment. It also noted that she had brought more than 24 judicial review proceedings in the High Court since 1999. The court concluded that her conduct was sufficiently vexatious to justify the restrictions and said the litigation imposed significant costs on the State.
The judgment records that Sfar was convicted in the District Court on 19 animal welfare counts on 7 July 2016 and barred from keeping pigs and sheep under section 58 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. It says she later applied to set aside the convictions, but the District Court refused that application. At the time of the High Court judgment, a separate judicial review challenging those convictions was listed for hearing on 18 July 2017; the court did not decide that challenge in this judgment.
On costs, the High Court ordered Sfar to pay the costs of both judicial review applications, applying the usual rule that costs follow the event. The judgment does not state a monetary figure.