The High Court has ruled that William Fitzgerald could not represent Munster Wireless Limited in its application for leave to seek judicial review, rejecting his arguments based on Irish, EU and human rights law.
Ms Justice Faherty’s judgment, delivered on 28 June 2018, determined a preliminary issue in the case. The company seeks leave to challenge decisions made by Judge Terence Finn at Cashel District Court on 22 February 2016. The underlying application alleges that the judge refused to recuse himself despite alleged indications of bias, would not allow digital audio recording, and refused discovery of information. Those allegations were not decided in this judgment.
Fitzgerald, identified in the judgment as a company director, signed the leave application and argued that he could act for the company if authorised. He relied in part on section 41 of the Companies Act 2014, which allows a company to empower an attorney to act on its behalf. The court held that this provision did not give him a right of audience or turn the company into a natural person entitled to conduct its own case. The judgment also noted there was no evidence that Fitzgerald held power of attorney.
The judge distinguished the filing of court papers from appearing to represent the company. She said the papers appeared to comply with the rules for judicial review applications and that there was no basis for the Central Office to refuse them on that account. That did not prevent an opposing party from later seeking proof that the company had authorised the application. The question before her, however, was Fitzgerald’s right to represent the company in the leave application.
Faherty applied the general rule that a company must be represented by a qualified lawyer, while recognising that Irish courts have allowed exceptions in rare circumstances where necessary to avoid particular injustice. She found no evidence of exceptional circumstances here. She also rejected Fitzgerald’s arguments that EU treaty provisions, the EU Charter or the European Convention on Human Rights entitled him to represent the company. The court found no EU law issue requiring consideration of a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The judgment therefore resolved only the representation issue. It did not decide whether leave for judicial review should be granted or determine the company’s underlying allegations about the District Court proceedings.