A Court of Appeal judge has called for consideration of whether a litigant found to have forged a document and lied under oath should face conditions when pursuing an appeal. He did not decide the question in the appeal before the court, which had concluded.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 7 February 2025, Mr Justice John Meenan said he agreed with a judgment just delivered by Mr Justice Allen but found one aspect of the appeal “very troubling”. The judgment names Mr Justice Hyland as another member of the Court of Appeal panel.
The underlying findings were made by the High Court trial judge. The court had heard Mr Rogers claim there was a lease with a tenant from January 2014. Meenan said that lease would have required a consent letter from mortgagee AIB. Mr Rogers initially did not have the letter, but later produced one purportedly signed by Mr Foley.
Mr Foley gave evidence and was cross-examined on behalf of Mr Rogers. The trial judge found the letter was forged by Mr Rogers and that he had given deliberately untruthful sworn evidence about it. Meenan noted that this finding was not directly appealed. The notice of appeal referred to pleading points and to the trial judge reaching the conclusion too readily, but, when asked about the absence of a direct challenge in the written submissions, Mr Rogers’s counsel said there had not been time to include one.
Meenan also referred to the High Court judgment’s account of rent being received from a tenant despite a High Court order. He said Mr Rogers initially denied this, but phone examination showed he had been in contact with the tenant through WhatsApp.
The judge described the conduct as undermining the administration of justice. He said a future court might consider hearing an appeal from a litigant in similar circumstances only on conditions, such as security for costs. He also recognised that access to the courts is a constitutional right, though not an absolute one.
Meenan said he would not answer the question without submissions from both parties. Because the appeal had concluded, he said that would not happen in this case. His comments identify an issue for possible consideration in a future case; the judgment does not impose a condition or make an order on that issue.