The Court of Appeal has refused Oliver Natale’s application for more time to appeal a High Court ruling that withdrew his case from a jury, finding he had not established an arguable ground of appeal. The court also awarded the costs of the extension application to the State respondents.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered in July 2022 by Mr Justice Edwards, sitting with Ms Justice Kennedy and Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh. The motion concerned only whether Natale should receive extra time to appeal; the Court of Appeal did not decide the underlying claims at this hearing.
The judgment says Natale’s High Court proceedings sought damages and other relief over claims that his dwelling was wrongfully invaded, that he was wrongfully arrested and detained, and that there was an attempt to maliciously prosecute him. He also alleged negligence by the State defendants in failing to apprehend and prosecute the person responsible for the crime for which he had briefly been suspected. The judgment says he claimed the events cost him his job and led to his eviction. These are described as claims, not findings by the Court of Appeal.
At the close of Natale’s case in a High Court jury trial before Ms Justice Reynolds, the defendants applied to have the case withdrawn from the jury, arguing the evidence did not disclose a case in law for it to decide. The judge granted that application in a written ruling on 17 November 2021. Her order was perfected on 1 December.
The appeal rules required a notice of appeal within 28 days of the perfected order. Natale attempted to file one on 5 January 2022, but the Court of Appeal office refused it as apparently late. The respondents would not consent to late filing, so he applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension.
The court applied the three-part test in *Eire Continental Trading Company v Clonmel Foods*. It accepted that Natale had formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the permitted period, satisfying the first limb. The court described the second limb, requiring something like a mistake, as finely balanced, noting Natale’s account that as a lay litigant he did not know about the 28-day rule. It did not need to resolve that issue because he failed the third limb: showing an arguable ground of appeal.
The judges said he had not identified a stateable legal error in the High Court ruling or shown a basis to challenge its conclusions on the search warrant, arrest, detention, alleged malicious prosecution, or negligence and breach of duty. The court refused the extension. It did not hear or determine an appeal on those issues.