The High Court has permanently stayed proceedings brought by Patrick Kelly against University College Dublin (UCD) and barred further proceedings arising from his 2001 and 2002 course application without prior High Court consent.
In a judgment delivered on 29 January 2013, Mr Justice Hedigan granted orders sought by UCD. Any consent to start further proceedings must be sought in writing from the principal registrar of the High Court. The judgment does not record a determination of the underlying discrimination claim in this decision.
The dispute began after Mr Kelly applied for a place on a Masters in Social Science (Social Worker) course for the 2002–04 academic period. He alleged that UCD discriminated against him on grounds of gender when it did not initially offer him a place, and that he was treated rudely during his interview. UCD denied the allegation about the interview. The judgment records that UCD later offered him a place, which he declined.
The Equality Tribunal found in 2006 that Mr Kelly had not established prima facie gender discrimination. He appealed to the Circuit Court. The judgment recounts a series of subsequent applications and appeals, including a referral of questions to the European Court of Justice and applications seeking recusal of judges and other relief. Several applications were refused or found to have no basis or merit.
In a 2012 judgment, the High Court had accepted Mr Kelly’s undertaking not to bring further interlocutory applications, subject to specified exceptions, while reserving the possibility of a restraining order. In the present application, the court considered written submissions and affidavits from both sides. The judgment notes that UCD objected that Mr Kelly’s submissions had not been served in accordance with the court’s direction, but the documents had been exchanged and the court proceeded on that basis.
Justice Hedigan concluded that the court’s processes had repeatedly been used to pursue groundless litigation incapable of leading to a possible benefit, and that a restraining order was required for the proper administration of justice. The final order stayed all proceedings in the case permanently and prohibited further applications or proceedings arising from the 2001–02 UCD application, or against UCD, its servants or agents, or its legal advisers involved in the case, without prior High Court consent.