The Supreme Court has dismissed Thomas Talbot’s application to set aside its 2007 judgment, finding that he had not established the exceptional circumstances needed for the court to reconsider a final order.
The application, heard by Denham J., sought to vacate a Supreme Court judgment delivered on 29 June 2007. That judgment had dismissed Mr Talbot’s appeal from a High Court refusal, made on 6 February 2006, to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.
The 2007 proceedings concerned Circuit Court decisions made in 1990, 2001 and April 2004. The Supreme Court had said the first two decisions had already been appealed to the High Court, whose decisions could not be challenged by judicial review. It also noted that the 2004 matter had been adjourned without a substantive order, and that Mr Talbot had not filed a grounding affidavit or explained the delay in bringing his application.
In his new motion, Mr Talbot alleged bias and unfairness in the earlier proceedings. He also raised concerns about family-law decisions, legal representatives, court staff and property. These were his allegations and submissions; they were not findings made in this judgment.
The court set out that the Supreme Court’s decisions are constitutionally final and conclusive. It said a limited jurisdiction to revisit a final order may arise in rare and exceptional circumstances, including to protect constitutional rights or justice. Mr Talbot bore a heavy burden to establish that such circumstances existed.
The court found that his assertions did not meet that burden. It said the only decision before it was the Supreme Court’s 2007 judgment; the underlying Circuit and High Court family-law decisions were not open to review in this application. It also found no objective basis for his claim of bias, applying the test of whether a reasonable member of the public would apprehend that he had not received a fair hearing from an impartial judge.
Mr Talbot appeared in person. The court said it allowed him extensive written and oral submissions, including about two hours to address the motion, and considered material filed both before and after the hearing.
The court dismissed the motions because no jurisdiction to review the 2007 judgment arose in the circumstances. It added that, even if such jurisdiction had arisen, there was no basis to vary that judgment. The ruling did not reopen or reconsider the earlier family-law decisions.