Gaultier & Anor v Reilly & Ors (No. 2) (Approved) [2024] IEHC 24 (18 January 2024)

Gaultier & Anor v Reilly & Ors (No. 2) (Approved) [2024] IEHC 24 (18 January 2024)

The judge found no evidence of objective or subjective bias, impropriety, or lack of integrity. The recusal application was based on previously withdrawn grounds, strategically resurrected after adverse rulings, and constituted an abuse of process. The allegations regarding assignment, pleadings, DAR transcripts, and differential treatment were unfounded and did not warrant recusal or setting aside prior judgments.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 24
Parties
First Named Plaintiff: Arnaud Gaultier; Second Named Plaintiff: Sup Pliable Limited; First Named Defendant: Mark Reilly; Second Named Defendant: Áine Mc Guigan; Third Named Defendant: Louise Swords
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 January 2024
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Recusal Application and Related Procedural Motions
Outcome
Recusal application refused; prior judgments upheld; proceedings against third defendant struck out; costs awarded to first and second defendants against Mr. Gaultier personally.
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judges, Objective Bias, Abuse of Process, Case Management, Costs
Civil Procedure Judicial Ethics Recusal of Judges Objective Bias Abuse of Process Case Management Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arnaud Gaultier

First Named Plaintiff

Sup Pliable Limited

Second Named Plaintiff

Mark Reilly

First Named Defendant

Áine Mc Guigan

Second Named Defendant

Louise Swords

Third Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Recusal Application and Related Procedural Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse himself for alleged bias, lack of integrity, or incompetence
  2. 2 Whether prior judgments should be set aside for alleged bias
  3. 3 Whether the recusal application constitutes an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found no evidence of objective or subjective bias, impropriety, or lack of integrity. The recusal application was based on previously withdrawn grounds, strategically resurrected after adverse rulings, and constituted an abuse of process. The allegations regarding assignment, pleadings, DAR transcripts, and differential treatment were unfounded and did not warrant recusal or setting aside prior judgments.

Court Disposition

Recusal application refused; prior judgments upheld; proceedings against third defendant struck out; costs awarded to first and second defendants against Mr. Gaultier personally.

Orders

  • Recusal application refused
  • Judgments of 16 May 2023 and 28 July 2023 upheld