The Supreme Court has dismissed Jacqueline McGovern’s appeal after she sought an extension of time to challenge a High Court possession order concerning a mortgaged property in Co. Leitrim where she and her husband lived.
The appeal concerned the Court of Appeal’s refusal to let Ms McGovern appeal out of time against High Court orders made in January and March 2017. The High Court had granted possession to Seniors Money Mortgages (Ireland) DAC, the lender, in proceedings against Derek Gately, who had been appointed administrator ad litem of the estate of the late Noelle McGovern. Jacqueline McGovern was a notice party and later became a defendant in her capacity as executrix.
The Supreme Court considered whether time should be extended despite the absence of a demonstrated intention to appeal within the permitted period and a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It said the usual factors for such applications are guidelines, not rigid preconditions, and the court must weigh all relevant circumstances. The longer the delay, it said, the stronger the proposed appeal may need to be.
Ms McGovern argued that the High Court judge had initially treated the property as registered land and purported to grant relief under the Registration of Title Act 1964, although it was unregistered. She contended the resulting order was made without jurisdiction. The lender submitted that the judge was told the land was unregistered at the later hearing and that the perfected orders did not refer to the Act.
The Supreme Court found that no final order had been made at the January hearing. The judge had left the question of Ms McGovern’s position open and asked counsel to prepare an order for her review. The error about registration was corrected at the March hearing, before the orders were perfected. The final order was for possession simpliciter, which the High Court had jurisdiction to make.
The Court therefore found no arguable ground of appeal. It added that even if the proposed ground were arguable, the significant delay and the technical nature of the alleged error did not justify extending time. It said the lender was entitled, on the evidence before the High Court, to possession of the property securing the loan, and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court did not decide the underlying possession claim afresh.