The Court of Appeal refused Arnaud D. Gaultier’s applications to adjourn two appeals, obtain a recording of a court list call-over and vary an earlier deadline order. The rulings did not decide the underlying appeals or the Revenue Commissioners’ separate application to strike them out.
Gaultier’s appeals against the Revenue Commissioners were listed for hearing on 3 April 2020. On 6 March, McGovern J. ordered that they would stand dismissed if Gaultier failed to lodge written submissions by 20 March. The Revenue Commissioners had sought to strike out the appeals for failure to comply with directions, but later said they would not pursue that motion in light of the deadline order.
In a motion heard on 13 March, Gaultier argued that the appeals should be adjourned until Part 5 of the Judicial Council Act 2019, which provides for a Judicial Conduct Committee, was commenced. He contended that courts could not validly decide cases before then. Costello J. rejected that argument, finding that the courts derive their authority from the Constitution and that the absence of a formal complaints or disciplinary process did not remove their jurisdiction. She also refused a request to adjourn because two named judges were members of the Court of Appeal, saying any recusal issue would be for the court assigned to hear the appeals.
Gaultier also sought the digital audio recording of the morning call-over of the Non-Jury List on 22 June 2017 and the subsequent assignment of his case to Noonan J. He relied on an order made by Irvine J. in July 2018 for release of audio from the High Court hearing on 22 and 23 June 2017. Costello J. said that order had been complied with: it covered the hearing itself, not the preceding call-over or case assignment. She found that the registrar, rather than Noonan J., had informed parties that the judge was available to hear the case, and that no recording could be obtained of that exchange because the registrar was sitting without a judge and the system was not recording.
The judge also refused the request as a variation of the earlier directions, finding the call-over recording unnecessary to prepare the appeals and the alleged conduct at the call-over irrelevant to the appeal issues. She refused to vary McGovern J.’s 6 March order, noting that any challenge to his decision to sit would be a matter for an appeal to the Supreme Court if leave were granted.
Costello J. refused the relief sought in both motions heard on 13 March. No date was set for the Revenue Commissioners’ strike-out motion after they withdrew it. The parties were permitted to make submissions on the costs of the motions.