The High Court has refused Cathal McCrudden’s applications to extend time to appeal a 2007 debt judgment and subsequent Circuit Court orders, including a 2016 costs order. Mr Justice Max Barrett gave judgment on 11 July 2017 in two related proceedings.
Fate Park Limited, trading as Finn Valley Oil, obtained a €24,641 judgment against Mr McCrudden in September 2007 after a default of appearance and defence, the judgment says. The judgment was later registered as a mortgage on properties in County Donegal. In 2009, the Circuit Court ordered that the mortgage be well-charged. Further orders followed, including one in 2015 adopting a County Registrar’s certificate. The judgment records that the orders were not appealed within the applicable 10-day periods.
Mr McCrudden said he had not been served with the original civil bill and alleged that registered letters had been signed for by an An Post staff member without his consent. He also said he had a defence to the claim, including that he had not received the goods invoiced for. He said he learned of the judgment in 2008, intended to appeal, but relied on advice from his then solicitor not to do so. These were his affidavit claims; the High Court did not determine the underlying debt dispute.
In one application, Mr McCrudden sought to appeal the 2007 judgment and later orders out of time. The High Court accepted that, taken at its highest, his account disclosed an arguable ground of appeal. But it found he had not shown a bona fide intention to appeal within the permitted time, noting that he abandoned the plan in 2008 and did not appeal later orders when made. It also found no qualifying mistake had been shown and declined to extend time.
The second application concerned a costs order made on 11 February 2016. Mr McCrudden had lodged a notice of appeal at the Letterkenny Circuit Court office on 18 February, within seven days, but it reached the High Court Central Office five days later and was held to be out of time. The judge accepted that Mr McCrudden had a timely intention to appeal the costs order, but found he had identified no ground of appeal against it. The application to extend time was therefore refused. The court said his attempt to use that costs order to challenge earlier orders could not succeed.
The court refused both applications. It did not set aside the prior orders or decide whether Mr McCrudden would have succeeded had an appeal proceeded.