The High Court has refused Peter Nowak’s application for judicial review over the Courts Service’s rejection of four notices of appeal against Dublin Circuit Court decisions in data protection cases. The court found the review proceedings substantially out of time and, separately, rejected Nowak’s arguments about the rules governing the appeals.
In a judgment delivered on 20 March 2024, Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell considered both Nowak’s application for leave to seek judicial review and his substantive claims at a telescoped hearing. Nowak, who represented himself, sought orders requiring the Central Office of the High Court to process the notices and declarations that Order 61 of the Rules of the Superior Courts did not apply. The Data Protection Commission and the Superior Courts Rules Committee were notice parties and did not take part in the hearing.
The underlying Circuit Court orders were made on 23 November 2021. The court said Nowak had 10 days to appeal. The Central Office received the four notices by registered post on 2 December, but returned them that day, identifying problems with their format and title. The judgment records that the forms did not identify which Circuit Court had made the decisions or whether oral evidence had been given.
Justice O’Donnell held that appeals under section 26 of the Data Protection Act 1988 are governed by Part IV of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 and Order 61, where no separate appeal procedure is specified. The information missing from Nowak’s notices mattered because it helped determine where an appeal would be heard. The judge also said a decision relied on by Nowak did not establish that a notice was sufficient simply because it stated a point of law.
The judge said the Courts Service performed administrative functions and had no authority to waive court rules or accept defective notices after the deadline. He noted that procedures existed to seek an extension of time, but the judgment records that Nowak did not seek one.
On delay, the court treated 16 May 2022—the date Nowak first moved an ex parte application in court—as the relevant date for starting the judicial review. That was about five months after the rejection of the notices had been communicated. Although the rules allow extensions, Nowak had not applied for one or provided evidence explaining the delay. The court therefore refused the relief sought.
The judge gave a provisional view that the Courts Service should receive its costs, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. Any party seeking a different outcome was given 14 days from the judgment’s issue to file written submissions, with the other party allowed seven days to reply.