The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Larkin’s application to review its April 2022 judgment, finding that he had not identified a fundamental denial of constitutional justice.
The ruling, delivered electronically on 31 January 2023 by Mr Justice Binchy, with the agreement of Ms Justice Whelan and Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh, concerned an application made on 13 May 2022. Larkin had asked the court to review its decision and, if it refused, to give written reasons. He argued that the judgment did not reflect the appeal hearing and had failed to address allegations of abuse of process, fraud and malicious deception.
The earlier appeal concerned two High Court orders made on 13 December 2021. The Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal on 7 April 2022. Those High Court orders had corrected the wording of an earlier order to record that the proceedings had been struck out, and refused relief sought by Larkin in a separate motion.
The underlying proceedings had been brought by Tom Kavanagh and Tanager Designated Activity Company. They claimed the defendants had failed to give up possession of a property to Kavanagh, whom they said had been appointed receiver, and had interfered with the receivership. The respondents later obtained possession and sold the property, and sought to end the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal explained that its review jurisdiction is exceptional and applies only where there is a fundamental issue of constitutional justice affecting the result. It cannot be used to reargue issues already decided or to introduce new evidence. The court said Larkin’s complaints about the receiver’s appointment, sums allegedly owed and the property sale had not been before the High Court on 13 December 2021, so they were outside the scope of the appeal. It also said the new evidence he submitted about the sale could not be considered on this review application.
The court concluded that Larkin had not identified a denial of fair procedures or other flaw that could engage the review jurisdiction. It said grievances with the April 2022 judgment should have been pursued through an application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The application for review was dismissed.