The High Court has refused an applicant leave to bring judicial review proceedings seeking to remove four Court of Appeal judges over a finding about an email he sent during earlier litigation.
In a judgment delivered on 30 May 2025, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the application was presented as one for quo warranto, a remedy concerning a person’s authority to hold public office. But the applicant accepted he was not challenging the judges’ original appointments. His complaint was about their conduct and a decision interpreting his email, which he said infringed his constitutional right to his good name and the judges’ oaths of office.
The judge said the High Court had no jurisdiction to review the merits of a Court of Appeal decision or remove its judges. Under the Constitution, removal of a superior court judge is a matter for the Oireachtas. She also said the applicant could not seek review of an exchange in a separate case he had witnessed but was not a party to.
The underlying Court of Appeal judgment, Gaultier & anor v Reilly & others [2024] IECA 103, interpreted the email as a threat to make the second named respondent incur further legal costs unless the dispute was settled. The applicant did not deny sending the email, but disagreed with the court’s interpretation. The High Court said he had already tried to have the Court of Appeal revisit its decision, including on 20 May 2025, and had been refused. The judge said any challenge to that decision should be brought by appeal to the Supreme Court.
The judgment also considered whether fraud could support review of a superior court decision. It found no evidence that the Court of Appeal had been deceived, and said disagreement with its interpretation of the applicant’s own words did not establish fraud. Allegations of judicial misconduct could be taken to the Judicial Council, the judge said, but its complaints process could not be used to re-argue a case simply because a litigant disagreed with the result.
The court refused leave to pursue the quo warranto claim and refused leave for the other reliefs sought. It said the applicant had not shown arguable grounds for the claims. The judgment did not determine whether the challenged Court of Appeal finding was correct; it held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to review it in these proceedings.