The High Court has refused Bernadette Fagan’s application for more time to appeal a Circuit Court possession order over Temple House and adjoining land in Horseleap, County Westmeath. It discharged the extension previously granted by the Master of the High Court and ordered that any notice of appeal served or lodged be struck out.
The dispute arose from loans advanced in 2004 to Temple Spa Limited, secured by a personal guarantee from the company’s directors, Declan and Bernadette Fagan, and a charge over Temple House and about 14.5 acres. After the company defaulted, a receiver was appointed in 2010. Judgment for €5,780,460.28 was entered against the defendants in 2011, and they were adjudicated bankrupt in 2012.
A Circuit Court order granting possession to the plaintiff, ACC Loan Management Limited, was made on 28 July 2015. The defendants sought judicial review of that order. The High Court refused their requested relief, and the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal in July 2017.
Bernadette Fagan then applied to extend the time to appeal the Circuit Court order. The High Court Master granted the extension in December 2017. ACC Loan Management appealed that decision. Declan Fagan was not the applicant for the extension considered in this judgment; Bernadette Fagan appeared in person.
The court applied the three-part test in *Éire Continental Trading Co. Ltd. v Clonmel Foods Ltd.*: an applicant must show a bona fide intention to appeal within time, something like a mistake explaining the delay, and an arguable appeal ground. The judge accepted that Mrs Fagan had formed an intention to appeal in time, citing letters sent in August and September 2015. But she did not seek an extension until July 2017, nearly two years later.
Mrs Fagan said acute stress and anxiety had left her unable to pursue an appeal. The judge accepted she was under considerable stress, but concluded it had not made her unable to appeal or seek an extension promptly. He noted that she had actively participated in the judicial review proceedings and had deliberately chosen that route instead of appealing. The required mistake had therefore not been established.
The judge also addressed proposed appeal grounds, including allegations of falsified evidence, procedural defects, and breaches of consumer regulations. He said those grounds had either already been determined in the judicial review proceedings or were not supported as grounds of appeal. He found no evidence supporting allegations that the plaintiff’s officials had given false or misleading evidence.
The court discharged the Master’s extension, refused Mrs Fagan’s application for more time, and ordered that any notice of appeal served or lodged be struck out. The judgment addressed the extension-of-time application; it did not make a new possession order.