The Court of Appeal has refused Anne Daly’s application to extend the time for appealing a High Court judgment entered against her and her husband with their consent in July 2012. The court said she had not met the criteria relevant to extending the deadline, which was 21 days.
Ms Daly applied in August 2014 for more time to appeal two 2012 decisions. The Court of Appeal considered only the July 30, 2012 order against Ms Daly and her husband, Patrick J. Daly, for €4,435,278.61. The judgment records that they had consented to it by email.
The other decision concerned a €4,182,471.37 judgment against Patrick Daly and two other defendants in separate proceedings. Ms Daly was not a party to those proceedings, so the court held she had no standing to appeal that order. It said her complaints about a guarantee connected to a separate €3.5 million loan facility were not relevant to the application before it; it made no ruling on the substance of those complaints or her liability under the guarantee.
Applying guidance from the Supreme Court’s 1955 decision in *Eire Continental Trading Company v. Clonmel Food Limited*, the Court of Appeal considered whether Ms Daly had intended to appeal within the permitted period, whether a mistake or similar event explained the failure to appeal, and whether she had an arguable appeal ground. The court described these as significant considerations, not binding prerequisites.
It found that Ms Daly had not claimed to form an intention to appeal on time. It also rejected her explanations that she had not understood the court process or her appeal rights, had not been present when judgment was given, and lacked funds for legal advice. The judgment cited her dealings with the bank, her consent to judgment, and evidence that she had access to solicitors before and after the order. The court said that, even if she lacked knowledge of the process or her rights, that would not excuse the delay.
The court also found no bona fide appeal ground. It noted that the order followed written consent and that Ms Daly had not defended the original claim on the grounds she later raised, including alleged undue influence, a lack of separate legal advice, or a breach of the bank’s duty of care. It further noted that she had not applied to set aside the consent judgment.
The requested extensions were more than two years. The court said Ms Daly first sought to challenge the July 2012 order in later proceedings brought by the bank concerning land in which she and her husband had an interest. It refused the relief sought. The ruling concerned the application to extend appeal time; the court did not decide the merits of a substantive appeal.