Appeal dismissed because no judicial review proceedings existed to appeal from the High Court's refusal of interim relief.

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.