The High Court has refused an appeal by S. B. to pause enforcement of Circuit Court orders requiring her to transfer a property in Co. Dublin and give up vacant possession. It also upheld the refusal to stay a costs order against her.
In a judgment delivered on 20 March 2015, Mr Justice Abbott said the court would not strike out the appeal for allegedly vexatious conduct. He concluded that the stay sought should be refused, leaving the Circuit Court orders enforceable. The ruling concerned only whether enforcement should be paused; it did not make a new division of property.
The underlying divorce decree and ancillary orders were made by the Circuit Court on 19 July 2012. They included maintenance of C$1,000 a month, directions concerning properties in Ireland and Canada, and an order that, if the wife did not vacate the Canadian property, the Dublin property would transfer to the husband under specified conditions.
The wife’s appeal against the 2012 orders was struck out by consent in July 2013, with liberty to apply. She later began divorce proceedings in Canada. The Ontario Superior Court recognised the Irish divorce decree, but stated that provisions concerning property in Canada, including specified paragraphs of the Irish order, were unenforceable there. It also set aside a later Canadian divorce order and allowed the wife to seek other relief in Ontario.
On 11 November 2014, the Circuit Court directed compliance with the 2012 order, ordered the Dublin property transferred to the husband and required the wife to leave within three weeks. It also ordered the Canadian property transferred to the wife mortgage-free, authorised the County Registrar to sign documents needed for the Dublin transfer, refused a stay pending appeal, and made a costs order subject to a 12-day stay.
The husband’s counsel argued that the appeal resembled a case in which an appeal had been struck out for oppressive and vexatious conduct. Justice Abbott criticised the wife’s parallel proceedings and delays, but said her vulnerability and right to fair procedures weighed against striking out the appeal. He also noted evidence that the husband accepted she would remain a dependent spouse needing support.
The judge stated that the Irish court had no jurisdiction to make property orders over assets outside Ireland. He nevertheless refused the requested stay of the Circuit Court enforcement order and upheld the refusal to stay costs. The judgment did not determine the parties’ Canadian property proceedings.