The High Court has refused an application by two defendants to postpone a property dispute hearing while a criminal investigation was under consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The civil proceedings were listed for hearing on 13 July 2010. John Moore and Marie Moore asked for them to be adjourned to the Michaelmas term, or another date fixed by the court. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, Maureen Moore.
The dispute arises from the sale of premises in Dublin in 2002 by the first and second defendants to the third defendant, Nadine Chetty. The judgment says the premises appeared on a leasehold folio recording John Moore, the first and second defendants’ father, and Maureen Moore, his wife, as joint owners. The defendants claimed title as personal representatives of their father, who died in 1996, relying on a statutory declaration that included a death certificate for a person of the same name as the plaintiff, who died in Dublin in 1995 aged 57.
In her amended claim, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants knew, or ought to have known, the certificate was not hers and fraudulently relied on it to change the property register, enabling the sale despite her interest. The first and second defendants deny knowing the certificate was not the plaintiff’s and deny fraud. The judgment makes no finding on those allegations.
The defendants said a Garda investigation into fraud allegations began in 2009 after a report. They had been told the investigation was complete and the file had gone to the DPP, whose decision on whether to prosecute was awaited. They argued that giving evidence in the civil case could prejudice them in a possible criminal trial and affect the DPP’s decision. They also said the fraud allegation had been introduced late. The judge found they had been given ample opportunity to address it and that no prejudice arose from its lateness.
Justice Laffoy said there was no evidence that the defendants would be required to give self-incriminating evidence at the civil hearing. If the DPP decided to prosecute, the criminal trial judge could protect their constitutional rights through appropriate rulings. The judge also noted that it was uncertain whether the DPP would decide by the Michaelmas term, while even that delay was likely to prejudice the plaintiff, who was 71, in poor health after cancer and partly immobile.
The application to adjourn to the Michaelmas term was refused. The court did not decide the underlying property or fraud dispute; the hearing remained listed for 13 July 2010.