A ceremony at which the new president of the High Court accepted his seal of office at Áras an Uachtaráin was delayed by an hour on Monday afternoon because a legal challenge to the appointment was brought in the High Court.
The injunction application by Jerry Beades aimed at restraining the appointment of Mr Justice Peter Kelly was designed to cause "acute embarrassment" to the judge, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan remarked when refusing the application.
Lawyers for the State said the application was “vexatious, without merit and an abuse of process”.
Ceremony put off
Mr Justice Kelly was due to travel to the Phoenix Park and accept his seal of office from President Michael D Higgins at 3pm, but the late application by Mr Beades to the High Court meant the ceremony had to be put off for more than an hour.
Mr Beades sought an interim order prohibiting the appointment of Mr Justice Kelly to head the State’s third-highest court.
He also sought an order stopping Mr Justice Kelly taking his seat on the bench until there has been a “proper” examination as to his “suitability”.
Allegedly biased
The businessman, from Richmond Avenue, Fairview, Dublin claimed in an affidavit that, when adjudicating matters in relation to Mr Beades, Mr Justice Kelly did so in an allegedly biased manner.
In previous proceedings in 2012, Mr Justice Kelly granted Bank of Scotland’s application for a €9.6 million judgment order against Mr Beades over loans advanced for property purposes.
After hearing the application on Monday, Mr Justice Gilligan refused it and also refused to grant a stay on Mr Justice Kelly’s appointment pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The judge also awarded costs against Mr Beades.
Mr Justice Gilligan said there had been a delay in making the application which, he said, was designed to cause acute embarrassment to Mr Justice Kelly on “the day that is in it”.
Mr Beades initially made an application to Mr Justice Marie Baker, but the case was transferred to Mr Justice Gilligan, who was sitting in the chancery court.
Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for the State, contended the application was without merit, vexatious and an abuse of process and should be struck out.
