The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by Thomas McFeely after finding that the High Court had made a contempt-related breach finding without giving him fair notice that the issue would be heard or setting out the allegations in advance.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2012, Mr Justice Fennelly said the High Court hearing on 4 November 2011 concerned an adjourned consideration of proceedings brought by Dublin City Council. There was no new notice of motion advising McFeely that the Council would seek a finding that he had breached the court’s 17 October order, or that it intended to seek his attachment or committal.
At the 4 November hearing, the High Court heard evidence about the remedial works at Priory Hall. McFeely’s counsel objected that he had no forewarning or opportunity to obtain instructions and could not properly cross-examine. The High Court nevertheless found that McFeely had breached both his undertaking to carry out agreed works and the court order. It also ordered McFeely, Coalport Building Company Limited and their servants or agents to leave the apartment complex.
Dublin City Council later issued a notice of motion seeking McFeely’s attachment and committal. At a hearing on 17 November, the High Court treated the earlier breach finding as established and considered whether a sanction should follow. The Supreme Court noted that McFeely had effectively been removed from the works, so any committal at that point would not have been coercive. The High Court had characterised the alleged breach as sufficiently serious to warrant possible punishment for criminal contempt.
Justice Fennelly said a person facing a finding that could expose them to imprisonment must receive reasonable notice both that the hearing will take place and of the nature of the complaint. He said the fair procedures required before a contempt finding had not been followed on 4 November. He did not decide whether courts may, in rare cases, punish contempt on their own motion, because that question was unnecessary to resolve the appeal.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, also relying on reasons given by Chief Justice Denham. The judgment excerpt does not state the full terms of the resulting order or whether any further proceedings followed.