McManus vs Mart Company

This case involved an application for judicial review by Mr. McManus against the Mart Company, challenging the quantum of damages awarded to him in a previous High Court decision, which was also upheld by the Court of Appeal.

TLDR:

• Mr. McManus sought to reopen the issue of damages awarded to him by the High Court.
• The High Court and Court of Appeal had already adjudicated the matter.
• The application for judicial review was dismissed due to jurisdictional limits and procedural issues.

Mr. McManus brought a claim against the Mart Company, seeking damages for an incident that occurred on their premises. Dissatisfied with the quantum of damages awarded by McAlinden J in the High Court, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the original decision. Mr. McManus then sought judicial review to reopen the issue of damages.

The High Court identified several issues with Mr. McManus's application. Firstly, the Mart Company, a private commercial entity, was not a body exercising public law functions and thus not susceptible to judicial review. Secondly, the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal are not subject to judicial review under the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and RCJ Order 53, rule 3(6).

Despite these jurisdictional barriers, Mr. McManus persisted with his application, arguing procedural unfairness and bias in the original judgment. He also sought interim relief to set aside the costs awarded against him in the appeal, citing a lack of written judgment and adequate explanation.

The court issued a Case Management Directions Order outlining these fundamental issues and invited Mr. McManus to reconsider his application. He chose to proceed, leading to a case management review and a leave hearing.

At the leave hearing, Mr. McManus reiterated his dissatisfaction with the legal representation he received and the assessment of damages by McAlinden J. He presented a document titled 'Plaintiff's Clarification: Reasons for Appeal,' detailing his grounds for challenging the damages award.

The court emphasized that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the High Court or Court of Appeal. Additionally, the availability of statutory appeal mechanisms further barred the application for judicial review. The principle of legal certainty requires finality in legal disputes once appeal routes are exhausted.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review, concluding that the litigation process must come to an end. No order for costs was made against Mr. McManus due to the non-appearance of any proposed respondent.

Legal representatives: Mr. McManus represented himself.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mr. Justice Green

Case Citation Reference: [2024] NIQB 32