The High Court has dismissed the defence of a man who had been occupying a Kilkenny property, while allowing his counterclaim to continue. It also refused his request to adjourn the proceedings and extended by 21 days the deadline for him to leave the property.
In a judgment delivered on 6 November 2024, Mr Justice Liam Kennedy said the defence had no reasonable chance of success. In an addendum, the court refused the man leave to replace it with an amended defence and counterclaim, and directed that the existing defence be dismissed. The counterclaim was not dismissed and may proceed, subject to the usual process and the risk of costs.
The dispute concerns a property purchased by the plaintiff from a receiver appointed by banks. The court had previously found that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case of title and that the man had not shown a lawful basis for occupying the property. In August, it ordered him to vacate by 31 October, pending trial, with a stay until that date.
The man sought an adjournment after a recent diagnosis of ADHD and dyslexia, arguing that his condition and a lack of court supports had affected his ability to defend the case. The judge refused the application. He said he accepted the man may have the conditions, but the medical report did not establish that they had prejudiced his ability to participate or identify specific support needed for the proceedings. The court did not determine whether either condition constituted a disability under the Disability Act 2005 or decide any separate claim against the Courts Service.
The judge also refused a significant extension to the time to leave, but extended it to 21 November 2024 so the man could pursue an appeal and seek relief from the Court of Appeal if he chose. The order remained subject to his undertakings to leave peacefully if required.
The court said the adverse possession defence was contradicted by the man’s earlier affidavit and by possession proceedings brought by the banks in 2016, which resulted in an order to deliver vacant possession. The judge said those matters, together with evidence of the plaintiff’s registered title, left the defence with no reasonable prospect of success.
The plaintiff had also sought to strike out the counterclaim. The judge declined to do so because factual issues would need to be resolved at a plenary hearing. The addendum records that the proposed amended pleading focused on allegations about transfers in the plaintiff’s chain of title. The judge said the man had no standing to advance those points and refused leave to amend. The judgment made no finding on whether those allegations about the transfers were true.