The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a defendant identified as S.C. against a High Court refusal to adjourn proceedings for mediation. It also dismissed a separate appeal over case management directions, which the parties agreed had become moot after they were complied with.
The dispute concerns rental income from properties connected to loans made by Danske Bank to the defendant’s estranged husband. The defendant disputes involvement in some loans and alleges that her signature was forged on certain documents. The bank has not pursued her for judgment on those loans; it obtained judgment against her estranged husband for €5,696,514.
A family-law order secured maintenance for the defendant and two dependent children from rental income. It provided for €130,000 a year for six years from 24 October 2013, with the security due to expire in October 2019. The bank’s second-named plaintiff, appointed receiver over the relevant properties in April 2016, claimed entitlement to collect the rents under the mortgages and statute. The defendant relied on the family-law order. Those competing rights remained to be determined.
The plaintiffs brought fresh proceedings in July 2017. They sought interlocutory relief to protect the rent income while the dispute was decided. The defendant first raised mediation in court on 5 October, after delivering her replying affidavit the previous day. Following the court’s direction, she formally requested mediation; the plaintiffs declined and proposed another settlement meeting. A motion seeking mediation followed. Two settlement meetings had taken place, without resolving the dispute.
The High Court refused to adjourn the proceedings for mediation, finding it too early to intervene before pleadings were exchanged and while the injunction application was pending. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to consider the timing of the request, the earlier settlement efforts, the delayed affidavit and the absence of an agreement protecting the rent income. It concluded that the judge had properly exercised his discretion to refuse the mediation order and allow pleadings and the interlocutory application to proceed.
The appeal did not decide who was entitled to the rents, whether the receiver’s appointment or mortgage documents were valid, or the merits of the injunction application. Those issues were not determined by this judgment.