The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by Eoin Beakey concerning affidavits filed by Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank and an application to amend an earlier judgment. The court upheld the decision to admit the affidavits and found that the requested changes went beyond the limited purpose of the slip rule.
The first appeal challenged a High Court judge’s decision to admit affidavits from bank employees in support of the bank’s motion to strike out Mr Beakey’s proceedings. He argued that the affidavits were invalid because they did not state the time of day they were sworn or the deponents’ residential addresses.
The Court of Appeal rejected both objections. It held that the relevant court rules did not require exclusion in these circumstances: the date and place of swearing were recorded, and a workplace address could satisfy the requirement to state a deponent’s “place of abode” where the affidavit was sworn in connection with their work. The rules also gave the court discretion to admit affidavits despite irregularities. The court affirmed the High Court judge’s decision on the preliminary issue.
The affidavits had been filed in support of the bank’s 2017 application to strike out Mr Beakey’s claim. That claim concerned the bank’s earlier proceedings seeking possession of his dwelling house over mortgage arrears. The bank had been unsuccessful in the Circuit Court but obtained a possession order on appeal in the High Court in February 2016. The Court of Appeal judgment addressed the admissibility of the affidavits; it did not decide the bank’s strike-out motion.
The second appeal concerned Mr Beakey’s application under the slip rule to amend the High Court judge’s October 2018 decision. He sought several changes, including declarations and a stated case to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal said the slip rule permits correction of minor clerical errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. The judge had decided there was no such error, and the requested changes would substantially revise the judgment and its reasoning. The court dismissed this appeal too, concluding those matters belonged in an appeal, which Mr Beakey had already brought.
The court said costs should follow the event, subject to any submissions Mr Beakey might make within 14 days. If no change followed, the bank would be entitled to recover its costs in the appeal and below, once taxed and ascertained.