The High Court has refused a defendant’s application to extend the time to appeal a Circuit Court order requiring him to give up possession of a house in Mullingar, County Westmeath. The refusal leaves no impediment to enforcement of the possession order, the court said; it did not itself make a new possession order.
The Circuit Court entered judgment against the defendant in default of appearance on 12 May 2021 and ordered possession of the dwelling house at 63 Clonmore Heights, Mullingar. The order was drawn up on 2 June 2021. The defendant did not appeal within the ten-day period and did not apply to the Circuit Court to set aside the default judgment.
He applied to the High Court on 12 August 2021 for more time to appeal. His initial affidavit did not meaningfully explain the delay or identify proposed grounds of appeal. After the Master of the High Court gave him an opportunity to provide further details, he filed a supplemental affidavit. The application was heard by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 3 March 2023.
The proceedings began in the Circuit Court in January 2020. The plaintiffs sued as personal representatives of the late William Clyne, who died on 6 January 2019. The judgment said his will, dated 3 February 2015, left the residue of his estate to his four adult children, including the plaintiffs and the defendant. The house was part of that residue.
At the hearing, the defendant alleged that one plaintiff had excluded him and other family members from the deceased’s affairs, and alleged coercive control and undue influence concerning the will. He described the will as “corrupt”. He acknowledged that he had not brought proceedings to challenge the will and that it was now too late to do so. The judge noted that a fresh challenge would be vulnerable to delay or laches.
The judge said the proposed appeal would involve a fresh hearing of the possession application, rather than a review for error in the Circuit Court. The defendant therefore needed to identify an arguable basis on which possession could be resisted. He did not identify one, including any dispute that the plaintiffs had standing as personal representatives.
The defendant also asked for an adjournment of 12 to 18 months to seek alternative accommodation. He said in submissions, not in an affidavit, that he had applied to the local authority and had been told no suitable accommodation was available. The judge said there was no jurisdictional basis for an adjournment because no appeal proceedings were properly before the High Court unless an extension was granted.
The court refused the extension. Its provisional view was that the plaintiffs were entitled to the costs of the motion, to be adjudicated under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 if the parties could not agree. Either party may file submissions on a different form of order within three weeks of 10 March 2023.