The Court of Appeal has refused an application by David Ian Roberts and Janice Ruth Roberts to review a July judgment that had allowed their appeal, set aside a High Court order and sent the matter back to the High Court.
The court’s 5 November ruling addressed only whether the first step for reviewing its earlier judgment had been met. It said review under the exceptional jurisdiction described in the judgment requires more than an allegation that the earlier decision was wrong on its merits. The applicants’ affidavit and written submissions did not satisfy that threshold.
The dispute concerns a 2010 judgment of the High Court of England and Wales in favour of Robert Alan Roberts against David Roberts. The Irish proceedings sought a well-charging order over David Roberts’ interest in land. In December 2023, the High Court made an order charging the principal, interest and costs against that interest.
David and Janice Roberts appealed. In July 2024, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order. It did not strike out the special-summons proceedings: the court noted that the notice of appeal had not asked for that relief. The matter was remitted to the High Court, and the court observed that the parties should consider whether the proceedings served a useful purpose.
In seeking review, David Roberts argued that the July judgment contained factual error and that the proceedings should have been struck out. The Court of Appeal rejected his criticism of the judgment’s account of the English order, saying he had not shown it to be materially inaccurate. It stressed that the earlier hearing was interlocutory and had made no factual findings binding on a future trial judge.
The court also said the applicants had not meaningfully addressed its finding that their appeal did not seek a strike-out. They may still apply to have the proceedings struck out when the case returns to the High Court, provided they do so through a procedurally proper application.
The judgment criticised language used by David Roberts in court papers. The judges decided not to consider contempt proceedings in light of the appellants’ stated personal circumstances, while noting that a later judge could take action over abusive conduct. The application dated 4 September 2024 was refused.