The Supreme Court has dismissed Antonio Casimiro Lopes’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim that bias, discrimination or corruption affected earlier court proceedings over compensation for injuries from a road traffic accident.
In a judgment delivered on 27 March 2014, Mr Justice Clarke said the proceedings were bound to fail on the facts. The court upheld the High Court order dismissing the claim. It did not decide whether judicial immunity applied, whether the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform could be held legally responsible for judges’ conduct, or whether the claim was time-barred.
Mr Lopes’s original personal injury claim resulted in a Circuit Court award of IR£12,000. He later sued his solicitor for professional negligence. In 1997, the Supreme Court allowed his appeal against the dismissal of that claim and sent the question of damages back to the High Court for assessment. The High Court assessed the value of the original injury claim, and a later Supreme Court appeal increased the damages to IR£155,000, in addition to the Circuit Court’s IR£2,000 special-damages award.
Mr Lopes then brought proceedings against the Minister, seeking compensation under EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution. He argued that he had not received proper compensation for future lost earnings, particularly earnings he said he could have made as a navigator at sea, and alleged that this resulted from discrimination and judicial wrongdoing. He also sought €1.5 million for hardship and trauma.
The Supreme Court focused on whether there was a credible factual basis for those allegations. It said the 1997 Supreme Court decision had sent the damages question back for assessment on the evidence; it had not decided that Mr Lopes was automatically entitled to a particular amount for lost earnings. The court also said that admitting actuarial evidence at the assessment hearing did not predetermine the eventual award.
Clarke J reviewed the hearing records and other materials Mr Lopes relied on, including his complaints about medical evidence, the handling of the hearing, and a judge’s consideration of his fitness to work at sea. The judgment said those matters did not provide a credible basis to infer bias, discrimination or corruption. It also noted that the later Supreme Court appeal had awarded a rounded sum for loss of opportunity to earn.
The court’s decision concerned whether the claim could proceed, not a full trial of the allegations. It concluded that the factual basis was bound to fail, so the complex legal questions raised by the claim did not arise. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court dismissal was upheld.