The High Court has refused Patrick John Rigney leave to bring a judicial review challenge to his Circuit Court conviction for operating an unregistered dog breeding establishment in Offaly. The application was out of time, and no properly constituted application to extend the deadline was before the court.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan ruled on 3 October 2025 that Rigney had not shown an arguable basis for an extension. The judicial review papers were filed on 16 September 2023, almost four months after the Circuit Court order he sought to challenge, and the leave application was not opened until October 2024. The applicable rules required an application for an extension to be grounded on an affidavit setting out the reasons for delay. The judge said that requirement had not been met and declined to adjourn the case to allow another attempt.
The challenge concerned a Circuit Court decision following an appeal against two District Court convictions. The District Court had fined Rigney €500 on each charge in July 2022. The Circuit Court later allowed his appeal against the charge of failing to comply with a closure notice, but upheld the conviction for operating an unregistered dog breeding establishment. The High Court judgment gives the Circuit Court hearing date as 24 May 2024 in one passage and describes the challenged order elsewhere as dated 24 May 2023.
The establishment charge arose from a September 2021 inspection at premises on Circular Road, Daingean. The judgment says it was undisputed that the kennels were not registered as a dog breeding establishment. An inspection report recorded 12 adult female dogs considered capable of breeding. Under the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010, premises keeping at least six female dogs over six months old capable of breeding must be registered.
The High Court said most of Rigney’s other complaints did not provide arguable grounds for judicial review. The judge explained that judicial review was not an appeal to reconsider the evidence, and that challenges to the closure notice could not be brought in these proceedings after Rigney did not use the statutory appeal process. The Circuit Court had already set aside the conviction relating to that notice.
One issue did meet the low threshold for arguability: whether the Circuit Court could proceed when the name of the District Court clerk who signed the summons was not discernible, given the statutory requirement that the clerk’s name be specified. The judge said the argument might support a jurisdictional challenge, while noting that the summons identified the issuing court office and that no prejudice had resulted. But because the application was out of time and lacked a proper request to extend the deadline, leave was refused.