Munster Wireless Ltd. -v- Judge Terence Finn

This matter began as a fraudulent civil claim in the District Court against Munster Wireless Ltd. for an alleged failure to pay monies allegedly due to Tipperary County Council for Commercial Rates. The District Court judge, Terence Finn, refused to allow the Digital Audio Recording system to be active, refused to order the discovery of relevant documents held by Tipperary County Council and the Valuation Office, refused to recuse himself for demonstrated bias and found against the company without any evidence having been presented to prove a debt to Tipperary County Council,


September 15 2020

Supreme Court Determination 2020_IESCDET_103

Supreme Court Determination:
  • Supreme Court refused Leave to Appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal.
  • Changed the name of the matter.
  • Failed to address the substantive issues.
  • Failed to refer to the CJEU under article 267 TFEU or declare an Acte Claire.
July 15 2020

Application for Leave Booklet submitted

Application For Leave Booklet 2020-29 submitted to the Supreme Court along with a cover note giving a brief outline of the history of the matter, addressing the late filing and content of the respondents notice and including questions which should be considered when assessing the validity of the Respondents objections.

May 29 2020

Respondents Notice lodged late to Supreme Court

The applicant became aware, from the Supreme Court office, on Thursday the 2nd of July that the
respondent’s notice had been filed on the 29th of May. The applicant wrote by email to the Chief
State Solicitor’s Office on the 2nd of July requesting a copy of the respondent’s notice which was
received by email on the 4th of July.

Respondents Notice

March 5 2020

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court 2020/29

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court 2020/29

2020_IESCDET_103_Application for Leave

November 14 2019

Court of Appeal Judgment 2019/328 – [2019]IECA286

Judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal refusing the application for extension of time to appeal.

  • Misinterpreted the literal and purposive meaning of sections 38, 41 & 868 of the Companies Act 2014 despite Ms. Justice Marie Whelan having been the Attorney General when the act was passed.
  • Introduced legal uncertainty to the meaning of section 41 of the Companies Act 2014.
  • Refused to refer a Case Stated to the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 41 of the Companies Act 2014.

Court of Appeal Judgment 328-2019 14-11-19

July 9 2019

Notice of Motion for Extension of Time lodged to Court of Appeal

Notice of Motion and Grounding Affidavit was lodged with the Court of Appeal seeking an extension of time to appeal the High Court decision of Ms. Justice Faherty.

Notice of Motion Extension of Time

Affidavit Extension of Time

Application Extension of Time

November 10 2014

High Court Order 2014JR603

High Court order made refusing Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review.


October 14 2014

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review 2014JR603

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review submitted to the High Court.