Mr Denis Riordan lodged papers yesterday to appeal to the Supreme Court the High Court's refusal to restrain the nomination of the former Supreme Court judge, Mr Hugh O'Flaherty, as vice-president of the European Investment Bank.
Speaking to reporters at the Four Courts Mr Riordan, a college lecturer of Clonconane, Redgate, Co Limerick, said he would also be seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the appointment of Mr O'Flaherty pending the determination of the appeal.
A separate action for damages taken by Mr Riordan against eight judges and former judges of the Supreme Court, including Mr O'Flaherty, was struck out in the High Court by Mr Justice Smyth on the application of the State, which claimed it was an abuse of the court process.
Mr Justice Smyth agreed the claim was an abuse of the process of the court, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and had no reasonable prospect of success.
Mr Riordan is restrained from issuing any further proceedings against the judges he attempted to sue, and is also restrained from proceeding against any other Supreme Court judge without Mr Justice Smyth's permission. He was ordered to pay the costs of yesterday's hearing.
In a statement of claim Mr Riordan alleged that the Supreme Court judges, in their handling of actions taken by him, including an unsuccessful challenge to divorce legislation, had "attacked the social order of the State and damaged the welfare of the nation by their corrupt actions".
He alleged they had violated their oath to uphold the Constitution and had deliberately failed to administer justice. He further claimed they had been biased and alleged: "Any judge who grants a divorce is a corrupt judge."
Mr John Rogers SC, for the judges, said Mr Riordan was attempting to attack the judiciary and the entire judicial system, and to undermine the authority and credibility of the courts through an assault on the personae of the judges and the judges' character.
Mr Riordan said he believed that, in relation to one of his appeals to the Supreme Court, there had been a blatant lie by the judges of the court who had acted in an unfair and unjust manner. He had a right to sue anybody who violated his constitutional rights, he argued.
Mr Justice Smyth, giving his decision on the application to strike out the proceedings, said he had had reason to draw Mr Riordan's attention to the manner of his address to the court. It was possible to criticise people in a civilised way without using contentious language.
It might be all right to claim that judges had acted in a particular way. However, to impute the type of wrongs alleged by Mr Riordan was "not only over the top", but was a deliberate use for the purpose of trying to advance some point of view which did not accord with fairness, common sense, justice, constitutional rights or any modicum of decency in public discourse.
When Mr Riordan was told the court had ordered him to pay the legal costs of the judges, he said he had brought his action in good faith. He accepted what Mr Justice Smyth said about the language in the pleadings. "You may not regard it as appropriate but it was my way of putting my case forward," he said.