The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision refusing Michael Egan leave to seek judicial review of an adjournment in possession proceedings brought by Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC.
The appeal concerned an order made by Roscommon County Registrar Fintan Murphy on 20 November 2017. It sent Pepper’s proceedings against Egan and his wife, Eileen Egan, to the Roscommon Circuit Court judge’s list on 20 February 2018. The underlying claim sought possession of a dwelling house.
Egan argued that the registrar should have accepted conditions he had set out in a conditional appearance. Those conditions required Pepper to establish a lawful cause of action, demonstrate that its supporting affidavit complied with court rules, and obtain a declaration that the court had lawful jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal said the conditional appearance raised issues about the substance of Pepper’s claim rather than a proper challenge to the court’s jurisdiction. It also noted that Egan had not identified a specific breach in the affidavit or a legal basis for alleging that Pepper lacked bona fides.
The judgment explained that a conditional appearance can preserve a defendant’s ability to contest jurisdiction, but is not a way to defend a claim on its merits. It said the registrar could not decide a jurisdictional contest and would have to transfer such an issue to a judge. The registrar’s role in possession proceedings included checking service and whether the case was ready for a judge. In the Court of Appeal’s view, adjourning the matter to the judge’s list was appropriate, and the adjournment gave Egan time to bring a motion or deliver a defence.
The High Court had refused leave on 11 June 2018. The Court of Appeal applied the test for leave to bring judicial review, which requires an arguable legal case with a reasonable prospect of success. It concluded that Egan’s grounds were unstateable and unsupported by cogent evidence. The appeal was a de novo consideration of the leave application.
The court refused the application for judicial review and affirmed the High Court order. It did not determine Pepper’s possession claim; the order under review had only adjourned those proceedings to the judge’s list.