The High Court has declined to rule on Joseph Lavery’s application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings, finding that he first had to seek permission under an existing Isaac Wunder order.
In a judgment delivered on 1 November 2017, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the order, made against Mr Lavery in July 2016, barred him from issuing further proceedings without leave from the President of the High Court or a judge nominated by the President. Mr Lavery’s judicial review proceedings began with a motion dated 16 January 2017, but he had not obtained that leave.
The judge said administrative orders made by other High Court judges after the proceedings began did not amount to implicit permission. He directed Mr Lavery to apply to the President for leave to bring the proceedings he wished to pursue. The President, or a judge nominated by the President, would decide that application.
The proposed judicial review concerned District Court convictions for road traffic offences. Mr Lavery alleged that the District Judge acted in bad faith, including in relation to offences for which he said he had not received fixed penalty notices or summonses. He also objected to the judge’s demeanour and to rulings against him.
Justice Barrett said the allegations were serious but found no supporting material before the court beyond Mr Lavery’s own general statements. He said the complaints about the convictions and any alleged deficiency in service could be addressed through an appeal. Mr Lavery had already started an appeal against the convictions, and a stay of a disqualification order had been granted pending its outcome.
The judgment says the court would have refused leave if it had been prepared to decide the application. But Justice Barrett expressly declined to adjudicate on the application’s merits because the required permission under the Isaac Wunder order had not been obtained. The court therefore did not grant or refuse leave on the substance of the judicial review request; Mr Lavery was directed to seek the required permission through the process set out in the order.