Lavery v Humphreys & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 148 (17 June 2024)

Lavery v Humphreys & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 148 (17 June 2024)

The appellant's motion to set aside the High Court order was misconceived, as the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revisit a final order absent exceptional grounds, none of which were invoked. The appeal was dismissed as the claim was frivolous, vexatious, and bound to fail. Extension of the Isaac Wunder order was justified only to restrain further abusive motions in the current appeal.

Citation
[2024] IECA 148
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Joseph Lavery; Defendant/respondent: Richard Humphreys; Defendant/respondent: James Faughnan; Defendant/respondent: John Francis Aylmer; Defendant/respondent: Rory Hayden; Defendant/respondent: Joseph Smith; Defendant/respondent: Brian O'Callaghan; Defendant/respondent: Francis Comerford; Defendant/respondent: Alan Mitchell; Defendant/respondent: Ireland; Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General; Defendant/respondent: The Minister for Justice and Equality; Defendant/respondent: Nora Rafferty; Defendant/respondent: Martin Cosgrove; Defendant/respondent: Cian O'Brien; Defendant/respondent: The Garda Commissioner; Defendant/respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant/respondent: The Courts Service of Ireland; Defendant/respondent: Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Isaac Wunder Order, Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings, Access to Courts, Setting Aside Orders, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Isaac Wunder Order Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings Access to Courts Setting Aside Orders Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Lavery

Plaintiff/appellant

Richard Humphreys

Defendant/respondent

James Faughnan

Defendant/respondent

John Francis Aylmer

Defendant/respondent

Rory Hayden

Defendant/respondent

Joseph Smith

Defendant/respondent

Brian O'Callaghan

Defendant/respondent

Francis Comerford

Defendant/respondent

Alan Mitchell

Defendant/respondent

Ireland

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant/respondent

Nora Rafferty

Defendant/respondent

Martin Cosgrove

Defendant/respondent

Cian O'Brien

Defendant/respondent

The Garda Commissioner

Defendant/respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant/respondent

The Courts Service of Ireland

Defendant/respondent

Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to set aside a previous High Court order
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the Isaac Wunder order should be extended to restrict further filings by the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's motion to set aside the High Court order was misconceived, as the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revisit a final order absent exceptional grounds, none of which were invoked. The appeal was dismissed as the claim was frivolous, vexatious, and bound to fail. Extension of the Isaac Wunder order was justified only to restrain further abusive motions in the current appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant restrained from issuing any further motion on this appeal without prior leave of the President of the Court of Appeal or a nominated judge
  • Respondents awarded costs of the appeal