The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Hanrahan’s appeal against a High Court judge’s refusal to adjourn a hearing of his motion concerning the Minister for Agriculture and Food’s right to set off sums owed to him against debts attributed to Hanrahan in other proceedings.
The appeal concerned only the refusal of an adjournment on 21 November 2019. It did not concern whether the Minister could lawfully make the set-off. The Court of Appeal said that issue had not been decided and could still be litigated in future.
Hanrahan’s motion, filed in July 2019, sought an order and declaration on the set-off question. He asked for an adjournment on the grounds that he had recently received documents and needed to file another affidavit, that he was unwell, and that he wished to join the Minister personally to the proceedings. The High Court refused the request.
The appeal court said the appeal was moot because the scheduled hearing had since taken place. Hanrahan made further unsuccessful adjournment applications that day before two High Court judges. He then chose not to proceed with his motion, which was dismissed. Those later decisions and the dismissal were not under appeal.
The court also said the appeal would fail on its merits even if it were not moot. Hanrahan had previously sought adjournments, and the hearing date at issue was the third date assigned at his request. The documents from the Minister were written submissions and a booklet of authorities, which the court said did not require a further affidavit. It described the proposed personal joinder as without merit.
The remaining ground was Hanrahan’s health. The court considered the medical report shown to the High Court judge but did not set it out in full for privacy reasons. It noted that the report described significant fatigue and continuing treatment. The appeal court concluded that the High Court judge had not exceeded the limits of his discretion, given the report, the history of the hearing dates and the need to manage court time and the interests of both parties.
The court dismissed the appeal. It did not make a final costs order in the judgment: the judge’s provisional view was that the Minister should receive the appeal costs. Hanrahan had 14 days to apply for a brief hearing to argue for a different order; otherwise, an order on the proposed terms would be made.