The High Court has refused John Mahon’s application to quash a Circuit Court possession order, finding that the 2023 hearing was fair and that the Circuit Court had sufficient evidence to make its decision.
Mr Justice Oisín Quinn delivered the ex tempore judgment on 3 July 2024 in judicial review proceedings. The application challenged an order made after a plenary hearing on 20 March 2023, granting possession of a property at 491 Bluebell Avenue, Dublin 12, to Lynn McGeown as personal representative of the late Tom Murphy. The order included a three-month stay before enforcement. Mahon currently resides at the property.
Mahon initially argued that he had been denied a fair hearing. At the High Court hearing, he accepted that the Circuit Court judge had not prevented him from presenting his case, referring to documents or challenging the respondent’s position. The judgment records that Mahon ultimately accepted he was not making a criticism of the judge on that basis.
He also complained that he had not received discovery, after letters seeking documents were disputed by the respondent’s legal advisers. He confirmed he had not brought a motion for discovery or raised the issue at the Circuit Court hearing. The High Court said the complaint had no substance and fell outside the judicial review case because it was not included in the Statement of Grounds.
A further issue concerned a motion challenging the respondent’s authority to continue the case for the late Thomas Murphy. The High Court found there was ample evidence for the Circuit Court’s ruling that the plaintiff had the requisite authority. It also said the respondent had not purported to give evidence about matters she was not competent to address.
In upholding the basis for the possession order, the High Court referred to evidence of an earlier District Court possession order in favour of Murphy, records showing he was the registered owner, and Mahon’s acceptance that he had signed a document agreeing to vacate the property in 2014. The Circuit Court judge was entitled to conclude that Mahon had not kept that commitment. Mahon’s affidavit evidence was read into the record and was considered, the High Court said.
The High Court distinguished the case from Connors v UK, relied on by Mahon, because the Circuit Court matter had been a plenary hearing rather than a summary process. It refused the relief sought. The judgment did not set aside the Circuit Court possession order.