The High Court has dismissed a self-represented plaintiff’s application to set aside earlier judgments in his dispute with Connaught Gold Co-operative Society Limited, ruling that there was no basis to interfere with the final orders.
In a judgment delivered on 31 May 2017, Mr Justice Noonan said the plaintiff’s claim that the trial judge should have recused himself rested on the fact that the judge was related by marriage to a solicitor who had represented the plaintiff. The court said that relationship alone could not give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the plaintiff would not receive a fair hearing.
The underlying dispute arose from the plaintiff’s dealings at the defendant’s cattle marts, where he had a credit facility. He alleged that after a disagreement around June 2012, the defendant reneged on a new trading arrangement, barred him from its marts and caused him to go out of business. Those were the plaintiff’s allegations, not findings made in this application.
The claim was dismissed after a four-day High Court trial in May 2015. The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal in May 2016, and the Supreme Court refused leave for a further appeal. The plaintiff later sought to reopen the proceedings, saying he learned in September 2016 that the trial judge, then President of the High Court Kearns P., was the brother-in-law of Robert Potter-Cogan, a solicitor who had initially advised him.
The plaintiff also alleged that his solicitor had told him the firm discussed the case with the President before a November 2014 motion hearing. Mr Justice Noonan described that claim as hearsay and said there was no admissible evidence establishing that such a discussion occurred. He added that, according to the plaintiff’s own account, the plaintiff knew of the alleged discussion before trial but did not object then or raise it on appeal.
The judge said it was uncertain whether the High Court could set aside its own judgment in such circumstances, particularly after an appeal had concluded. He said he could not conceive of a basis for the High Court to set aside a Court of Appeal or Supreme Court judgment, which would be for those courts to consider.
Even assuming a jurisdiction to intervene existed, the judge said granting relief would prejudice the defendant, which was blameless in relation to the complaints. He dismissed the application.