The Court of Appeal has refused two motions by Gerry Ward in appeals arising from a High Court order requiring him to hand over possession of a property in Dundrum.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 31 July 2018, the court rejected Ward’s requests to remove counsel for the receiver, delay his appeals, prevent the receiver from marketing the property, refer matters for a criminal investigation, and dismiss proceedings based on alleged defects in affidavits.
The appeals concern High Court orders made on 25 November 2016 and 27 January 2017. The November order adjourned a motion seeking to attach and commit Ward for failing to comply with the earlier possession order. The January order refused a stay of that possession order and adjourned the committal motion generally, with liberty to re-enter it.
By the time of the appeal judgment, the receiver had taken possession of the Dundrum property and had decided not to pursue committal. The Court of Appeal said that request was, for practical purposes, moot because committal is primarily coercive. It did not determine the underlying appeals in this judgment.
Ward argued that counsel for the receiver should be removed because counsel had relied on affidavit evidence he disputed. The court said it had no power to grant that request and that disagreement with counsel’s account of facts or law did not establish deception or misconduct. It also refused to delay the appeals pending Ward’s applications to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The court said the receiver already had possession and that damages could provide a remedy if Ward later succeeded and the property had been sold. It likewise declined to prevent the receiver from marketing or selling the property.
Ward also asked for a referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions or Garda Fraud Squad. The court said any complaint of criminal conduct should be made to the appropriate authority; directing an investigation was not a function of the court.
In his second motion, Ward said affidavits filed by or for the receiver did not comply with rules requiring details about the deponent’s abode and when an affidavit was sworn. The court said the objections had not been raised in the High Court and could not be introduced at this stage. It also found them without real merit: workplace addresses could meet the purpose of the abode requirement, and any defect in the jurat could be treated as a technical irregularity under Order 40, rule 15. The court refused the reliefs sought in both motions.