The Court of Appeal has refused John Philip and Jean Quearney’s application for a further stay on enforcement of an order giving AIB Mortgage Bank and Allied Irish Banks plc possession of a North King Street property.
In a judgment delivered on 9 December 2016, the President said the application came well after the one-year stay granted in March 2015 had expired. The court had dismissed the Quearneys’ appeal against the High Court possession order, which was made on 20 October 2014.
John Quearney argued that a further stay was justified because AIB had frustrated his separate proceedings against the bank. He said the court had indicated he could seek an extension if those proceedings were unduly delayed. He also alleged that AIB had admitted an error involving disclosure of information and documents about a regulated entity’s account.
The banks opposed the application. Their solicitor, Pamela Fitzpatrick, said the separate claim had not been unduly delayed by AIB and that part of it had been struck out by the High Court. She also cited delay in bringing the stay application, prejudice to the banks from being unable to enforce the possession order, and an alleged breach of a related injunction.
The court recorded that the separate proceedings began in July 2013. In December 2015, the High Court struck out several pleaded claims, including deceit and breach of statutory duty, but allowed negligence, breach of contract and negligent misstatement claims to continue. A dispute remained over the adequacy of Quearney’s amended statement of claim.
The President said the possession proceedings and Quearney’s separate claim against AIB were unconnected. The court also noted that the property was an investment, not the Quearneys’ family home, and that the banks had possession orders from both the High Court and Court of Appeal. It said there was no suggestion Quearney could not recover an award if he succeeded in his separate claim.
The court did not decide whether Quearney had breached the injunction. It said that the competing affidavits about an altercation at the property in June 2016 did not allow it to determine whether he had acted in contempt.
Concluding that further postponement would improperly link enforcement of the possession order to the outcome of separate litigation, potentially including an appeal, the court refused the application for a further stay.