The High Court has refused a former diocesan secretary’s application to reopen part of an employment case dismissed at trial, and has restricted her from making further High Court applications without first seeking leave while her appeal is pending.
In a judgment delivered on 14 December 2005, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the plaintiff’s claim over the termination of her employment as Diocesan Secretary to the Diocese of Kildare and Leighlin had been heard and dismissed in its entirety by Ms Justice Carroll in February 2004. The plaintiff had appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, but the appeal had not yet been heard.
The plaintiff sought a declaration that Ms Justice Carroll had erred by setting aside an earlier order against the first defendant, who had died by the time of the trial and, she argued, was not properly represented by personal representatives. She also sought a further hearing of her issues against that defendant and the restoration of an interlocutory injunction that had allowed her to continue receiving her salary until trial.
Justice Peart said the injunction had ceased when the trial concluded. Any extension pending appeal would have to be ordered by the Supreme Court. He said the High Court had no jurisdiction to act as an appeal court over another High Court judge’s order, and that any complaint about how the case was heard had to be pursued through the appeal.
The judge rejected the application, describing it as misconceived. He said the trial had proceeded against both defendants, pointing to the notice of trial naming both and describing the case as “this action”.
The defendants also sought an order restricting further applications. Justice Peart ordered that the plaintiff could not issue a High Court motion or make another High Court application before the Supreme Court appeal was determined without first making an ex parte application for leave. He said the restriction was necessary to prevent abuse of court processes and protect the defendants from unnecessary costs.
Separately, the court adjourned the defendants’ application to dismiss another set of proceedings brought by the plaintiff against two different defendants. That case, record number 2005 No. 2809P, was alleged by the defendants to be frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process and barred by res judicata. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to file a replying affidavit. The judgment records no decision on that separate application.