The High Court has refused Walter Evans and Eugene O'Sullivan leave to seek judicial review of Cork Circuit Court orders made in 2005, concluding that the time for bringing the challenges had long passed and that no sufficient grounds supported an extension.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 30 March 2012 in two linked proceedings. The applicants sought declarations that orders made by Judge Sean Ó Donnabháin on 17 October 2005 and related dates were invalid. The orders arose from disputes involving Coillte Teoranta, Skylink and Company Limited, and the two men.
Skylink held a 25-year lease of lands from Coillte. After disputes involving subtenants and alleged breaches of lease terms, Skylink withheld rent. Coillte brought ejectment proceedings seeking possession for non-payment. At a hearing on 6 October 2005, the judge indicated he was minded to order possession, refuse relief against forfeiture and award €16,600 in mesne rates. The judgment records disagreement over whether an order was made that day or on 17 October; the judge appeared to stay the ejectment order until the later date.
On 17 October, the judge made orders in separate equity proceedings concerning rights of way and land ownership, then lifted the stay on the ejectment order and refused a further stay pending appeal. The judgment recounts that appeals were not properly filed in either set of proceedings. Later applications to extend time or reinstate appeals were refused, including by the High Court in 2010.
The applicants alleged procedural unfairness, including that no court registrar was present at the 17 October hearing, and submitted that they had suffered an injustice. Justice Peart did not detail those complaints because he found the judicial review applications could be refused on timing grounds. Under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the time to commence the challenges had passed by several years. Difficulties with solicitors did not explain why judicial review had not been considered or begun earlier, the judge said. Although the applicants had intended to appeal in 2005, there was no evidence they had considered judicial review then.
The court refused leave to bring judicial review. It did not determine the applicants' substantive complaints about how the earlier hearings were conducted or make a finding that the challenged orders were invalid.