Mr Justice Michael Twomey said cases were being “delayed as court sittings are being taken up dealing with nonsensical applications which are being pursued on the pseudo legal advice of people who are not legal practitioners”.

Lay litigants are “better off with no legal representation than advice from qualified litigation advisers”, the judge said in the judgment handed down yesterday.

He compared them to unqualified medical practitioners and said it would be “inconceivable that operating theatres would be occupied as a result of unnecessary surgery being performed on the ‘medical’ advice of these quack doctors causing other patient to have their surgery delayed”.

The case before Mr Justice Twomey was effectively an appeal of another High Court ruling which had been brought back to him, another High Court judge, instead of being properly taken to the Court of Appeal.

“As a result of this nonsensical application, a full half day in the High Court, which could have been used to deal with other cases, was wasted dealing with an application which no legal practitioner would have brought,” he said.

“For this reason, this case starkly highlights, not just the harm to lay litigants, but also the systemic harm which is being caused to the administration of justice by the significant number of unqualified litigation advisers who are ‘practising’ in our courts.”

Providing legal advice without a qualification is a criminal offence, Mr Justice Twomey pointed out, though there was no evidence “of any person ever having been prosecuted for a breach of these provisions”.

There was evidence in the case before him that the lay litigants, Teresa and Sean Barrington, had been assisted by “a person with no legal qualifications”, though the judge said there was “no claim of any offence having been committed by this person”.

The litigation centred on a dispute regarding a commercial property in Galway.

Mr Justice Twomey refused the application to set aside the order made by Mr Justice Martin Nolan in the previous High Court proceedings, finding that “the Barringtons, while being assisted by an unqualified litigation adviser, have made several fundamental errors”.

A further hearing could take place next week to deal with any final orders and the finalisation of the costs.