The High Court has allowed an appeal arising from an ejectment case involving commercial premises in Finglas, after finding that the Circuit Court had authority to transfer the matter to the High Court when it lacked jurisdiction.
The appeal concerned an order by the Dublin Circuit Court that refused the plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the proceedings and struck out both the motion and the case for want of jurisdiction. The High Court judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Henry Abbott on 1 September 2017.
The plaintiffs, John Meier and Hilda Meier, own a small industrial estate on Jamestown Road, Finglas, comprising five units and vacant space. They brought proceedings against Patrick, otherwise Paddy, Lynch, by an Ejectment Civil Bill on Title. The Circuit Court record identifies the case as 2015/000398.
The judgment recounts that a 2002 tenancy agreement let Lynch Unit 2.5 and outside space for a mobile office for 365 days at €127 a week. The plaintiffs said that after the agreement expired, he remained in occupation without paying rent and extended his occupation to other parts of the property. They said some areas may have been sublet to unidentified third parties. The judgment records letters asking Lynch to leave in 2011 and 2012, service of the proceedings in January 2015, and his entry of an appearance the following month. No defence had been delivered.
The plaintiffs sought transfer after a rateable valuation increase and a question about how the property had been rated raised doubt over the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. Their counsel argued that the statutory provisions governing ejectment cases were confusing, that later legislation increasing the Circuit Court’s property jurisdiction could apply retrospectively, and that statutory powers permitted transfer to the High Court. These were the appellants’ submissions, not findings that the later legislation cured the jurisdictional issue.
Mr Justice Abbott said the statutory table’s treatment of rateable valuation gave rise to the confusion described by the appellants. He also noted that the property’s rateable valuation had increased around January 2014, adding to uncertainty about the applicable valuation and jurisdiction. He was satisfied that the Circuit Court could transfer the matter under section 21 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 when it lacked jurisdiction.
The High Court allowed the appeal. The judgment does not set out a separate order directing transfer or determine the underlying ejectment claim; it addressed the Circuit Court’s jurisdictional handling of the proceedings. The defendant was not represented in the appeal.