Background
Peter Nowak was dismissed by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2009 after failing professional accountancy examinations. The Employment Appeals Tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded €7,500. On appeal, the Circuit Court upheld the unfair-dismissal finding in 2016 and increased the award to €34,000.
Although successful in the Circuit Court, Mr Nowak appealed to the High Court. In February 2017, the High Court struck out that appeal after he chose not to attend the hearing, despite having notice and sending letters objecting to the motion. He did not appeal the strike-out order. In January 2026, he applied to set it aside, alleging irregularity, unfair procedures and fraud.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy refused the application. The jurisdiction to revisit a final order is wholly exceptional and is reserved for circumstances involving a clear and significant breach of fundamental constitutional rights, through no fault of the party seeking to reopen the case.
No such circumstances existed. Mr Nowak had notice of the 2017 motion, deliberately did not attend, and the judge had considered his written objections. He identified no evidence of fraud, no denial of fair procedures, and no explanation for failing to appeal or for waiting nine years before seeking relief. The application was an impermissible attempt to revive concluded litigation and amounted to an abuse of process.
Key Takeaways
- Final High Court orders may be reopened only in exceptional circumstances; an alleged legal error is not enough.
- A party who elects not to attend a notified hearing cannot ordinarily later characterise that choice as a breach of fair procedures.
- An unexplained nine-year delay, particularly after related unsuccessful litigation, was fatal to the application.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strong Irish-law principle of finality in litigation. Parties seeking to challenge an adverse order must use available appeal procedures promptly rather than attempt to reopen it years later on unsupported allegations of procedural invalidity.
The Court also observed that the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to strike out a Circuit Court appeal that discloses no arguable ground or raises matters outside the court’s jurisdiction, independently of the procedural rule relied on in the original strike-out motion.