The High Court has granted Ray and Susan Hall leave to pursue a limited judicial review challenge to a Circuit Court possession order over their family home in Abbeylands, Duleek, Co Meath. The court did not quash the possession order. It stayed the order pending the final determination of the judicial review proceedings.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said it was arguable that fair procedures required an adjournment after Paul Coddington, who had been assisting Ray Hall, was arrested during the possession hearing for alleged contempt of court. The judgment records that Coddington denied the allegation that he was recording proceedings. The court also accepted that Hall was upset and that his ability to defend the case may have been impaired by the arrest.
The second arguable ground concerns written materials Hall intended to rely on, which he said became unavailable after Coddington’s arrest. The judge said it was arguable that Hall’s lack of access to those documents breached fair procedures, or the appearance of fair procedures.
The possession hearing took place on 16 July 2015 before Judge Leonie Reynolds. After Coddington’s arrest, Hall asked for an adjournment, saying he was too upset to continue. The request was refused and the judge made a possession order in favour of Stepstone Mortgage Funding Ltd, with a nine-month stay. Hall raised the missing paperwork after the order was made.
The judgment states that the lender had advanced €300,000 under a 2007 loan secured on the Halls’ family home. The applicants had been in payment default since 2009, and the lender demanded full repayment of the outstanding amount in March 2014 before issuing possession proceedings in May that year.
The High Court rejected the applicants’ other proposed grounds for judicial review, including complaints about unanswered questions, the interruption of the hearing to address contempt matters, Garda conduct and interventions from the bench. It directed the applicants to amend their statement of grounds so that the challenge would be confined to the adjournment and missing-document issues. They were given three weeks to serve the amended statement and an originating notice of motion. Costs were reserved.
The ruling concerns permission to pursue the specified challenge. It does not determine whether the possession order will ultimately be quashed.