The High Court has concluded that two sets of proceedings brought by Patrick McGreal should be struck out, after rejecting his attempts to challenge the legal representation of Courts Service staff, Gardaí and other defendants.
One case arose from an earlier local election petition in Westmeath Circuit Court. McGreal sued County Registrar Bridin Concannon and Chief State Solicitor’s Office solicitor Maria Browne following the handling of a motion in that case.
Mr Justice David Cregan held that Concannon and Browne had acted within the scope of their employment and were entitled to State-funded legal representation. He also found that the High Court proceedings were, in substance, an attempted direct appeal from a County Registrar’s order. The proper route was an appeal to a Circuit Court judge, meaning the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The judge additionally characterised the case as an abusive collateral attack on the County Registrar’s decision.
The second case arose from disputes at the Central Office of the High Court over court fees in October 2024. McGreal sued Courts Service staff, Gardaí, the Garda Commissioner and the Courts Service chief executive, alleging matters including false imprisonment and wrongdoing by officials.
The court held that the relevant staff and Garda members had been acting within their employment and could be represented by State-funded lawyers. It also rejected McGreal’s argument that Mason Hayes & Curran LLP could not validly enter an appearance because an individual solicitor had not been named.
Mr Justice Cregan concluded that the second proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. He referred to evidence concerning McGreal’s attempts or threats to arrest court officials, a District Court judge and a solicitor, and said such conduct interfered with the administration of justice.
The judge said he would also consider an Isaac Wunder order, which could restrict McGreal from bringing further proceedings against the Courts Service or Gardaí without prior court permission. He requested further applications and input from the Legal Services Regulatory Authority and Director of Public Prosecutions.
The proceedings were not formally struck out in this judgment because those issues and costs remained to be finalised.