Skoczylas v The Minister for Finance

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley
• Judgment Date: 05 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 700
• Docket Number: Record No. 2024/518MCA

Between/

Piotr Skoczylas

Applicant

and

The Minister for Finance

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 700

Record No. 2024/518MCA

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 s. 161 – Abuse of process – Issue estoppel – Applicant seeking a review pursuant to s. 161 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 – Whether the relief sought constituted an abuse of process

Facts: The applicant, Mr Skoczylas, applied to the High Court by way of a notice of motion dated 16 October 2024. The primary relief sought against the respondent, the Minister for Finance, in para. (1) of the notice of motion was stated to be a ‘review’ pursuant to s. 161 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 of what he said was a ‘determination’ made under s. 161(5) by the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator (the LCA) on 15 October 2024 in the context of 5 invoices which he submitted as a Bill of Costs dated 25 September 2024 to the LCA on 27 September 2024. This, he said, was without prejudice to an alternative claim that the 2015 Act did not apply to the adjudication of the 5 invoices because it sought to address “legal services and legal practitioners” and that s. 27 of the Court and Court Officers Act 1995 applied because he was a litigant in person. In addition, he asked that, if necessary, Bradley J consider referring two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) pursuant to Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Mr Skoczylas contended that there was an alleged discrepancy between the judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal and that because his legal interpretation had prevailed, he was entitled to relitagate those matters.

Held by Bradley J that the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal did not support his contentions; the High Court and the Court of Appeal had each determined that the LCA was correct in refusing the expenses claimed in the 26 invoices on the basis of the claims before him and this included 5 of the invoices which were the subject of the Bill of Costs dated 25 September 2024 and the relief sought in para. (1) of the notice of motion dated 16 October 2024. Accordingly, Bradley J dismissed the reliefs sought in para. (1) as constituting an abuse of process and falling foul of the principles of issue estoppel and res judicata and in circumstances where the submission of a Bill of Costs dated 25 September 2024 on 27 September 2024, including correspondence and applications submitted by the applicant to the LCA which culminated in the issuing of the notice of motion did not activate the adjudication process or jurisdiction prescribed by Chapter 4, Adjudication of Legal Costs, at ss. 154 to 161 of the 2015 Act. Bradley J also dismissed the reliefs sought in para. (2) of the notice of motion as there was no basis to refer the questions posited by Mr Skoczylas to the CJEU pursuant to Art. 267 of the TFEU.

Bradley J held that, in light of his findings, the alternative argument posited by the applicant in relation to the 1995 Act did not arise.

Reliefs refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on 5 ^th December 2025

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary

1 This application arises against the background of a lengthy and complex litigation history involving inter alia Mr. Skoczylas (also referred to as “the Applicant”), the Irish Life and Permanent Group (“the ILPG”) and the Minister for Finance (“the Minister”) which arose initially from a direction order made in respect of the ILPG pursuant to the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010.

2 By way of background, during the course of this protracted litigation, costs orders had been made in favour of Mr. Skoczylas (and others) as against the Minister which included out of pocket expenses and allowable outlay.

3 On 23 ^rd March 2012, for example, reflecting the then applicable taxation process, the High Court had awarded Mr. Skoczylas out-of-pocket expenses when taxed and ascertained of an interlocutory application. On 23 ^rd May 2012, the High Court had made a similar order in favour of Mr. Skoczylas in respect of another interlocutory application. Further, arising from Dowling & Ors v The Minister for Finance [2017] IEHC 832, the High Court (O'Malley J.) on 1 ^st December 2017 made an Order in favour of Mr. Skoczylas in the action which awarded him “ 40% of his allowable outlay to be taxed in default of agreement.”

4 This application comes before me by way of a Notice of Motion dated 16 ^th October 2024 grounded on an affidavit of Mr. Skoczylas of the same date.

5 Ostensibly, the primary relief sought by Mr. Skoczylas against the Minister in paragraph (1) of this Notice of Motion is stated to be a ‘review’ pursuant to section 161 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) of what he says is a ‘determination’ made under section 161(5) of the 2015 Act by the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator (the “ LCA”) on 15 ^th October 2024 in the context of 5 invoices which he submitted as a Bill of Costs dated 25 ^th September 2024 to the LCA on 27 ^th September 2024.

6 This, he says, is without prejudice to an alternative claim that the 2015 Act does not in fact apply to the adjudication of the 5 invoices because it seeks to address “ legal services and legal practitioners” and that section 27 of the Court and Court Officers Act 1995 (the “1995 Act”) applies because he is a litigant in person.

7 In addition, he asks that, if necessary, I consider referring two questions to the CJEU pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).

8 I will address the terms sought to be invoked in the Notice of Motion dated 16 ^th October 2025 later in this judgment.

9 In his opening remarks at the hearing of this application (which took place on 20 ^th and 21 ^st May 2025), Mr. Skoczylas indicated that the parent litigation had commenced approximately 14 years ago, in 2011, and that he was now in the concluding phase of it.

10 In reflecting on the 14 years of litigation he referred, for example, to comments of Hardiman J. in Dowling & Ors v Cook & Ors [2013] IESC 25, at paragraph 13, which were complimentary of Mr. Skoczylas.

11 Mr. Skoczylas laid considerable emphasis on the manner of his presentation of this application which included, for example, hard and soft copy material (5 lever arch folders and an e-book) with a hyperlinked book entitled “ Consolidated Materials for the Hearing”, together with appropriate highlighting and hyper-links (marked with blue and red arrows) to assist in mapping through the many pages of documentation. For example, pages 7–76 of the Applicant's e-book comprised the Core Motion Documents (Book 1); pages 77 – 1380 comprised the Evidence (Books 2, 3, and 4); pages 1381 – 2613 comprised the 9 Books of Authorities.

12 Mr. Skoczylas also indicated that his (24 page) ‘ Issue Paper’ summarised his case presented in the approximately 2,600 pages contained in the five books which comprised the application, of which over 1,000 pages were exhibits.

13 Throughout his case summary (page 17 of the Consolidated Materials for Hearing), Mr. Skoczylas makes considerable use of the hyperlinks discussed above, for example, when discussing a particular exhibit in a paragraph of the case summary, an arrow containing a hyperlink to that exhibit is present beside that paragraph.

CHRONOLOGY

11 The more recent chronology in this extended and complex litigation and the judgments of the High Court (Owens J.) in Skoczylas v The Minister for Finance & Ors [2023] IEHC 33 (unreported, High Court (Owens J.) 17 ^th January 2023) and of the Court of Appeal in Skoczylas v The Minister for Finance & Ors [2024] IECA 201 (unreported, Court of Appeal, Costello J. (as she then was), Faherty J., Burns J., 30 ^th July 2024, judgment delivered by Burns J.) set out the immediate context to the reliefs which are sought to be claimed in the Notice of Motion dated 16 ^th October 2024.

12 In summary, the current application relates to 5 out of 26 invoices. A central part of this application focuses, then, on the context in which those 5 invoices ultimately became the subject of the application sought to be made in the Notice of Motion dated 16 ^th October 2024.

The twenty-six invoices

13 In or around 17 ^th September 2020 (p. 537 of the e-book of materials), arising from the costs orders referred to at paragraph (3) above, Mr. Skoczylas prepared and submitted a Bill of Costs to the LCA pursuant to Part 10, Chapter 4 of the 2015 Act concerning 26 invoices which related to services that had been rendered to him by a company, Scotchstone Capital LLP (“SCLLP”) which is an English limited liability partnership. Mr. Skoczylas was a member of SCLLP and the 26 invoices related to “ professional expert non-legal litigation advice and services” which were said to have been provided during the parent litigation which he claimed was allowable outlay for the provision of non-legal expertise.

14 On 18 ^th January 2021, the LCA had directed a preliminary issue on the question of whether these services provided by Mr. Skoczylas via SCLLP, and described in detail in the 26 invoices, were recoverable pursuant to the costs orders.

15 At Exhibit PS6 to Mr. Skoczylas' Affidavit sworn on 16 ^th October 2024, he exhibits the directions dated 18 ^th January 2021 from the LCA. Under the sub-heading “ the Bill of Costs”, for example, the LCA refers to the amount of the total costs initially claimed which was comprised of the following categories: (a) Stamp Duty paid on various pleadings; (b) travel and accommodation expenses; (c) Attendance at court hearings; (d) Expert opinions/advices received; and (e) Non-legal litigation advice and services and added at paragraph (6) that “ The vast majority of the costs claimed relate to category (e). This category relates to advice/services provided by Scotchstone LLP, a UK Limited...