A judge has refused to allow a man pursue a fresh case against his brother with whom he has been locked in a bitter legal battle for more than a decade over ownership of a 4.5 acre field.
The dispute between Joseph and Thomas Slattery concerns a 4.5 acre field in Lahinch and the protracted litigation since 2012 has incurred “extraordinary” legal costs compared with the value of the land, the High Court previously noted.
Joseph Slattery, representing himself, was made subject last July to an order preventing him initiating fresh litigation against his brother Thomas unless he had court permission.
He applied last month to the Court of Appeal (CoA) for permission to bring an application seeking, inter alia, a miscarriage of justice certificate.
Cutting off family members: ‘It had never occurred to me that you could grieve somebody who was still alive’
The bird-shaped obsession that drives James Crombie, one of Ireland’s best sports photographers
The Dublin riots, one year on: ‘I know what happened doesn’t represent Irish people’
The week in US politics: Gaetz fiasco shows Trump he won’t get everything his way
In a judgment published on Friday, Mr Justice Senan Allen refused permission on the basis the intended proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of court process.
Joseph was essentially trying to reopen the issue of ownership of the land, which issue was decided against him in 2014 and had been dealt with by 14 judges, the judge noted.
The litigation began in 2012 when Thomas Slattery took Circuit Court proceedings alleging trespass by Joseph on the lands.
Thomas said the lands were transferred to him by their parents, Matthew and Anne, via a deed dated December 1981. After their mother, the last surviving parent, died in December 2010, Thomas was registered as full owner of the disputed land.
In opposing the trespass claim, Joseph counterclaimed he was the legal owner of the lands.
The Circuit Court found in favour of Thomas, restrained trespass by Joseph and dismissed the counterclaim. Joseph lost appeals against that decision to the High Court and Court of Appeal.
Further Circuit Court proceedings by Joseph seeking rectification of the title to the land to reflect his claim were struck out on the basis the ownership issue had been already determined.
In the interim, Thomas had in separate proceedings secured an order restraining Joseph trespassing on a 0.2 acre sliver of land adjoining the main field, which had previously been part of the west Clare railway line.
After Joseph lost a High Court appeal against that order in 2016, he took fresh High Court proceedings arguing he was the rightful owner of the land.
Thomas got those struck out on the basis the ownership issue had already been decided and was also granted what is known as an Isaac Wunder order, restraining further litigation by his brother without leave of the court. Joseph lost an appeal against those orders to the Court of Appeal in 2019 and the Supreme Court refused to hear a further appeal.
In March 2020 Joseph sought to raise issues in the High Court but that court refused in July 2021 to make orders sought by him.
Joseph then appealed to the CoA, which dismissed the appeal. After saying the matter “must come to an end”, the CoA granted Thomas’s application to expand the Isaac Wunder order to prevent his brother initiating any further proceedings in the Circuit Court, High Court, CoA and Supreme Court, against Thomas and specified State parties unless he had leave of the court to do so.
Refusing permission for the latest action, Mr Justice Allen said Joseph Slattery was “plainly” trying to reopen the issue of ownership of the property which had been decided against him in May 2014.
The judge concurred with the CoA judgment of July 2022 finding against Joseph and with what had been “repeatedly said” by 14 other judges on the matter. The question of ownership of the lands was conclusively determined by the High Court in May 2014, which made orders permanently injuncting Joseph trespassing on the lands, he said.
On foot of those and other findings, he refused permission to bring the action.
