The Supreme Court has dismissed Thomas Talbot’s application to vacate a 2007 order that struck out his motion to dismiss an appeal in his golf handicap dispute.
In a judgment delivered on 26 March 2009, Denham J. said the Supreme Court’s final orders could be reopened only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that Talbot had not met the heavy burden required to invoke that jurisdiction.
Talbot’s underlying proceedings sought damages, primarily for defamation, against Hermitage Golf Club, the Golfing Union of Ireland and Eddie Murphy, described in the judgment as a former handicap secretary of the club. The claim arose from events surrounding the regulation of Talbot’s golf handicap. Other causes of action were also pleaded.
The application concerned an earlier interlocutory dispute over particulars. The club and Murphy had appealed a High Court refusal to compel Talbot to answer questions about his statement of claim. While that appeal was pending, Talbot served a notice of trial. The High Court later set the notice aside, saying the matter was not ready for trial.
On 30 November 2007, the Supreme Court struck out Talbot’s motion seeking to dismiss the appeal and ordered him to pay the costs of that motion. It noted that the appeal was awaiting a hearing date and said it could not be dismissed on a motion unless it was manifestly vexatious or had no reasonable prospect of success. The court found neither condition applied. It also said Talbot could seek a new trial notice when the case was ready.
Talbot later sought to vacate that order, alleging bias by the judges who made it and asserting that his arguments and affidavit had not been properly considered. Denham J. said Talbot’s assertions, including claims of conspiracy, had no established factual or legal foundation. She found no objective basis for invoking the court’s exceptional jurisdiction.
The judgment added that, even if jurisdiction existed, the material did not establish objective bias. Disagreement with a court’s decision, shared school attendance, or a judge’s spouse’s past membership of a law firm were not, by themselves, sufficient grounds, the court said.
The judgment also noted that the underlying appeal about particulars had since been heard. On 29 February 2008, the Supreme Court allowed it in part and ordered Talbot to answer certain matters. That later decision was not part of the application to vacate. The court dismissed Talbot’s application.