The Court of Appeal has refused Cornelius M Cagney’s application for more time to appeal the dismissal of his defamation claim against the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland.
The motion, issued in December 2015, sought an extension to appeal an order made by the High Court on 8 May 2015 and perfected on 26 May. The Court of Appeal judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 10 March 2017.
Mr Cagney’s claim concerned entries made by the bank in his Irish Credit Bureau record. He alleged that the entries—“K”, indicating that his credit card account had been revoked, and “L”, indicating that he had settled it for less than the amount due—were defamatory. The bank denied defamation and pleaded that its communications were protected by qualified privilege.
The claim was heard by a judge and jury in May 2015. After hearing submissions from both sides, the High Court judge withdrew the case from the jury on 7 May, finding there was no case to put to them. The judge gave written reasons the following day, dismissed the claim and awarded costs to the bank.
In seeking more time to appeal, Mr Cagney said he was unfamiliar with court processes, had significant health problems after the trial and had a bona fide appeal. He also alleged breaches of constitutional rights, that he should have had his case determined by a jury, a lack of a court recording and perceived bias. He appeared in person before the Court of Appeal. The bank opposed the extension.
The Court considered whether Mr Cagney had intended to appeal within the permitted time, whether there had been a procedural mistake or similar reason for delay, and whether he had an arguable appeal ground. The judge was prepared to accept that his May 2015 motion seeking a copy of the digital audio recording might show an intention to appeal. But the court found no proper explanation for the delay. Mr Cagney provided no details or evidence of the health problem he cited, and the court noted that he had been involved in other proceedings and did not issue the extension motion until December, after the bank refused consent in October.
The court also found no arguable appeal ground. It held that the High Court judge had heard submissions from both sides before withdrawing the case, and that qualified privilege was a question of law on the uncontested facts in this case. The Court of Appeal said the trial judge had correctly concluded that the communications were privileged and that malice had not been pleaded or pursued. It also rejected the suggested constitutional and bias grounds.
The application for an extension of time to appeal was refused. The Court of Appeal did not hear or determine the proposed appeal itself.