The High Court refused Rosarie O’Mahony’s request to adjourn three mortgage-related matters listed for a two-day hearing, finding she had been properly notified and had received copies of the papers. The matters proceeded, and the court reserved judgment for electronic delivery when available.
In an ex tempore ruling delivered on 18 October 2022, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said Ms O’Mahony had chosen not to attend. Her letter to the court said she would not be a willing participant in what she described as another “trial by ambush” and asked for an adjournment until a Circuit Court case was complete. She also disputed that a possession order had been made in 2018.
The judge said a Circuit Court order dated 2 October 2018 was among the papers before him. Its operative terms granted possession of premises identified by a folio number and a nine-month stay on execution. He said the order appeared to contradict Ms O’Mahony’s assertion that no possession order had been made.
The ruling records that solicitors for Start Mortgages DAC filed affidavits describing correspondence sent to Ms O’Mahony from 2020 to October 2022. That correspondence included notice of the matters’ listing, the October 2022 callover and hearing, and copies of the pleadings. The judge said he was satisfied she had been properly served and was aware of the proceedings’ status.
The judge noted that Ms O’Mahony had been on notice by 12 October that the matters would be in a callover the following day, but did not participate or seek an adjournment then. He also cited the hearing’s scheduled start, the costs and court resources that an adjournment would waste, the absence of witnesses or oral evidence, and the parties’ access to the papers. He said there was no evidence before him that proceeding posed a risk of injustice.
The ruling described the listed matters as including an appeal concerning the 2018 possession order, a plaintiff’s appeal relating to an extension of time granted by the Master, and applications concerning an order said by the plaintiff never to have been made and the substitution of one party for another. The ruling declined only the adjournment request; it did not determine those underlying matters. The court proceeded with them and reserved judgment.