The Court of Appeal has refused Balford Construction Limited’s application to review its earlier dismissal of an appeal concerning the scheduling of motions in a case brought by the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland.
The appeal, heard on 25 July 2022, challenged a High Court order directing that the Bank’s motion to amend its summary summons and seek summary judgment, and Balford’s motion to strike out proceedings, travel together for hearing and determination on the same occasion. The High Court had also transferred both motions to the Non-Jury List for mention. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and adjourned all questions of costs.
Balford applied for a review by motion issued on 5 October 2022. Its solicitor, Marilyn McNicholas, argued that the appeal judgments had failed to engage with a key ground of appeal and proceeded on the mistaken premise that only the Bank’s summary judgment application had been transferred. She said Balford could not understand why it had lost.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It said the earlier judgment made clear that the Bank’s motion covered both amendment of the pleadings and summary judgment, and recorded that the two motions were to travel together. The court found there had been no misapprehension of the High Court order and said the evidence and written submissions had been considered before oral argument.
The court also addressed Balford’s criticism of the earlier judgment’s description of its position as an attempt to secure a strategic advantage. It said the appeal concerned a case management order, not the merits of Balford’s arguments that the loans were not payable on demand and that the Bank’s proposed particulars did not account for proceeds from realising part of the security. The court said the efficient management of the motions did not determine their merits.
The ruling explains that review of a final judgment is an exceptional jurisdiction requiring an applicant to show a fundamental error affecting the result and a substantive issue of constitutional justice. It cannot be used to reargue the merits or present arguments that could have been advanced at the original hearing.
The Court of Appeal concluded that Balford had shown no error of law or fact in its earlier judgments and had not established a denial of justice or a constitutional issue. It refused the review application. The ruling does not determine the separate pending appeal concerning the High Court’s summary judgment decision.