The High Court has refused an application by Patrick Clohessy for 14 forms of interlocutory relief, including orders challenging the commencement of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 and the jurisdiction of courts established under it.
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2025, Ms Justice Bolger said Mr Clohessy’s claim that the Act had not been validly commenced had already been rejected by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. She said those decisions bound the High Court and that the point should not be relitigated.
Mr Clohessy’s proceedings began in 2010. His original claims sought damages on several grounds and declarations about steps taken in earlier court proceedings and the registration of a deed of conveyance. Justice Bolger noted that, despite multiple applications and appeals over the years, he had not applied to amend his pleadings to expand the relief sought in those original documents.
The motion, dated 19 March 2024, also sought declarations that previous court orders were invalid, an investigation by the European Commission, a constitutional referendum and the appointment of an independent tribunal. The judge described many of the requested remedies as unavailable on an interlocutory application.
Mr Clohessy argued that material he had found in the National Archives showed a seal was absent when the 1924 Act was purportedly implemented. Justice Bolger said no explanation had been given for why the historical material was not raised in earlier proceedings. She held that it did not alter the legal effect of the Documentary Evidence Act 1925 or the published commencement order relied on in previous appellate decisions.
The judge also refused separate interlocutory injunctions, finding that Mr Clohessy had not established a fair issue to be tried. She rejected a request to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, saying no substantive issue of EU law had been raised. She found written submissions challenging a solicitor firm’s right of audience had no merit and were irrelevant because the issue was not pleaded in the proceedings or motion.
On costs, Justice Bolger gave an indicative view that Mr Clohessy should pay the defendants’ costs of defending the motion, without a stay on execution. She said the application could amount to an abuse of process. The court listed the matter for 30 April to make final interlocutory orders and deal with costs; written submissions, if any, were due at least 48 hours beforehand. The judgment does not record the final costs order.