The Supreme Court has dismissed Eileen Gunning’s appeal against the dismissal of her High Court proceedings over Chrysanthemum Cottage in Greystones, County Wicklow. It also affirmed an order requiring her to obtain leave before starting new proceedings about the cottage or the administration of her late parents’ estates.
The appeal was limited to whether Ms Gunning had been denied a fair hearing. The Court said she had not established that claim. It upheld the High Court’s decision to dismiss her proceedings as an abuse of process, which the High Court had treated as an attempt to relitigate matters already finally determined.
The dispute followed earlier proceedings over the cottage, which had been occupied by Ms Gunning and her late mother. In 2003, the High Court removed Ms Gunning as executrix of her late father’s will and appointed Brian Sherry, a solicitor, to administer the estate. In separate proceedings, a Circuit Court ordered Ms Gunning to deliver possession of the cottage to Mr Sherry as personal representative of the estate. The High Court affirmed that possession order in 2009.
Ms Gunning later claimed she owned the cottage outright and alleged that earlier court decisions had been procured by fraud. The Supreme Court noted that she produced no evidence supporting the fraud allegations or establishing that she had acquired the freehold. It also recounted the High Court’s conclusion that even if she had acquired the freehold while acting as executrix, she would hold that interest on trust for the estate’s beneficiaries.
The Supreme Court said the earlier possession decision was final and there was no evidence on which it could be set aside. It also concluded that Ms Gunning had been given opportunities to present evidence in the High Court, but did not do so. The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the dismissal.
The High Court’s order restricts Ms Gunning from bringing new proceedings directly or indirectly concerning the cottage without prior leave of the President of the High Court or a judge nominated by him. The judgment specified that the restriction applies to new proceedings about possession and ownership of the cottage and administration of her late parents’ estates; it does not apply to existing proceedings or an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed that order.