The High Court refused John Sheridan permission to revive claims against Emerald Contract Cleaners (Ireland) Limited and six other defendants, ruling that the claims had already been finally heard and determined.
Mr Justice Allen said on 28 August 2019 that Sheridan’s application sought to reopen an action he had dismissed on 30 May as frivolous and vexatious. The earlier order also barred Sheridan from bringing or prosecuting further claims against the defendants without prior High Court leave.
Sheridan, who represented himself, said he had new evidence that had not been available or considered at the earlier hearing. The judge rejected that contention. An affidavit from retired accountant Fintan Flannelly had been presented to the court in May, he said, and was addressed in the earlier judgment.
The judge recounted that Flannelly had made company filings identifying “James Vincent Sheridan” as a director and shareholder. Flannelly acknowledged, the judgment says, that the person he knew by that name was actually James Valentine Sheridan. The judge also said there was no supporting evidence for Flannelly’s account of transfers totalling IR£2,112,210 to company bank accounts.
A separate claim over land at 229 Sea Park, Malahide, was also described in the judgment. The judge said James Sheridan bought the property in 1972, after James Vincent Sheridan had died, and that the purchaser was James Valentine Sheridan. A Revenue form submitted in support of the estate administration had included the property in an estimated estate value of €2,898,406, including €950,000 for the Malahide property.
The judgment also referred to a 1996 High Court decision dismissing a claim based on a Revenue form showing the figure “2112210”. The earlier court had heard evidence from a Revenue officer that the number was a fictional figure used to check computer programmes, not a sum of money.
Mr Justice Allen said the leave provision in the earlier order did not allow Sheridan to reopen claims already decided. It concerned the possibility of a separate cause of action based on other matters. The court did not grant leave for the application to revive the dismissed claims.
The judge directed the Registrar to send a copy of the judgment to the Superintendent of An Garda Síochána at Bray, for the attention of the investigating officer. He said this was in the hope of avoiding further distress to the defendants and unnecessary use of public resources.