The High Court dismissed John Rooney’s latest challenge to the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme and ordered that he must obtain leave from the President of the High Court before bringing further proceedings against a list of specified defendants and bodies.
In a judgment delivered on 5 May 2017, Mr Justice Eagar ruled on a motion by Ireland and the Attorney General to dismiss the case and sought an Isaac Wunder order restricting future proceedings. Rooney represented himself but did not take part in the hearing of the motion.
The court said the proceedings repeated challenges to the scheme that had been brought in earlier cases and were an attempt to attack or reopen final Supreme Court orders. It described the current case as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process. The pleadings also made serious allegations against 25 members of the Superior Court judiciary; the judge said those allegations had no foundation in fact.
Rooney’s claims included that the scheme was repugnant to the Constitution, that European directives had not been validly transposed into Irish law, and that earlier proceedings had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. These were claims in his pleadings, not findings in this judgment. The judgment records that the defendants relied on previous decisions, including a 2016 Supreme Court judgment, in arguing that the core challenge had already been determined.
The court dismissed the proceedings and ordered costs against Rooney. It also restrained him from instituting proceedings, by summons, motion, application or otherwise, against the defendants in this case or a list of other named bodies and persons without leave of the President of the High Court. The order covers proceedings against, among others, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister for Finance, An Taoiseach, the Attorney General, the Irish Farmers Association, the Management Board for Disease Eradication and the Ombudsman.
The restriction requires leave; the judgment did not bar Rooney from pursuing every possible legal remedy. It expressly noted that he could appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.