Hanrahan -v- Gladney [2014] IESC 80 (07 February 2014)

Judgment Title: Hanrahan -v- Gladney Neutral Citation: [2014] IESC 80 Supreme Court Record Number: 507/13 High Court Record Number : 2013 396 MCA Date of Delivery: 07/02/2014 Court: Supreme Court Composition of Court: Fennelly J., McKechnie J., Laffoy J. Judgment by: Fennelly J Status: Approved Result: Dismiss Judgments by Link to Judgment Concurring Fennelly J Link McKechnie J., Laffoy J. THE SUPREME COURT [Appeal No. 507/13] Fennelly J. McKechnie J. Laffoy J. BETWEEN JOHN HANRAHAN APPELLANT AND MICHAEL GLADNEY, COLLECTOR-GENERAL RESPONDENT AND THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES, FOOD AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT NOTICE PARTY JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Fennelly delivered the 7th day of February. 2014. On 5th December 2013 Mr John Hanrahan appeared in the High Court before Mr Justice Peart. According to the judge's note, he "sought an order from [that] court to stay a Notice of Attachment issued by the Revenue Commissioners to the Department of Agriculture on 14 October 2013 in respect of any Single Payments which [might] be due and payable to the applicant." Mr Hanrahan produced an affidavit sworn by him on 5th December. It was accompanied by a number of documents concerning his dealings with the Revenue Commissioners in respect of his tax affairs. Peart J said that the interim order was sought as part of an application for leave to seek to quash the Notice of Attachment in question. He also said that he could find no arguable grounds to seek to quash the Notice of Attachment. He refused the application for interim relief and what he described as his application for leave to seek reliefs by way of judicial review. The High Court order of 6th December 2013 refers to the motion of the applicant as one "seeking Interim Relief seeking a temporary stay on the Notice of Attachment..." The order refuses that relief. It refers to no other form of proceeding whether by way of Judicial Review or otherwise. In fact Mr Hanrahan had not commenced any judicial review proceedings. He did not file any Statement to Ground Application for Judicial Review, as required by Order &4, rule 20(2). His affidavit names the Collector General of Revenue as the Respondent to the application. It does not suggest that Mr Hanrahan was seeking to quash the Notice of Attachment by way of an order of certiorari or otherwise make any reference to any application for judicial review. Since the application for interim relief was made ex parte, no notice was given to the Revenue Commissioners. For the sake of completeness, it should be said Mr Hanrahan issued no Plenary or other proceedings in the High Court. Nor did he indicate any intention to issue any proceedings. Nonetheless, Mr Hanrahan filed a Notice of Appeal against the High Court order to this Court and he has been heard. The Revenue Commissioners have been put on notice and their counsel has been heard in reply. The Court is satisfied that this entire procedure is fundamentally irregular and flawed. There was no proceeding of any sort before the High Court. Peart J apparently believed that Mr Hanrahan was pursuing relief by way of judicial review. But no such application had been commenced or has yet been commenced. In these circumstances, there was no proper proceeding before the High Court. Thus there was no proper Notice of Appeal before this Court. There is no proceeding in existence in which the Court can make any order. Proceedings before the courts must be initiated in accordance with one or other of the forms of legal proceeding provided for by the Rules of the Superior Courts. It is not open to persons generally simply to present themselves in court with an affidavit. It appears that Mr Hanrahan makes complaints about the regularity of procedures pursued by the Revenue Commissioners. Any such complaints must be pursued in appropriate proceedings. The Court will make no order on the application. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII