The High Court has extended the time for Susan Evans to file an appeal against a Circuit Court order requiring her to pay Thomas Gannon €172,000 from the proceeds of a house sale. The court did not decide the underlying ownership dispute. It said the appeal should be heard on oral evidence and left costs and any security requirement for further consideration.
The Circuit Court made the original order on 19 May 2004, after hearing Gannon’s evidence in Evans’s absence. It found he had a 40% beneficial interest in the net proceeds from the sale of 156 Clonliffe Road, Dublin. The judge calculated net proceeds of €430,000 and ordered Evans to hold €172,000 on trust for Gannon and pay it to him. The Circuit Court also awarded Gannon costs, to be assessed if the parties could not agree them.
The parties had lived together from about 1988 to 1996. Gannon claimed he contributed to the purchase and improvement of homes held in Evans’s sole name. Evans disputed that he had acquired any beneficial interest. Her defence also alleged assault and battery; those allegations were not findings in this appeal-time application.
Evans had moved to Australia before the 2004 hearing. She and her brother, Robert Evans, swore that she did not learn of the hearing or judgment until April 2005, after she was served with papers relating to an Australian injunction freezing her assets. Her brother said he had not passed on messages from her solicitor because he believed doing so would cause her distress. Gannon argued that Evans knew about the proceedings and had left Ireland after selling the house to avoid them.
Justice Declan Budd considered the application on affidavit evidence and said the court was not then hearing oral testimony or cross-examining witnesses. He accepted, for the purpose of deciding the extension application, the sworn accounts that Evans had not known of the hearing and moved promptly once she learned of the judgment. He also noted that the €172,000 remained available under the Australian injunction. The court did not resolve the competing accounts about the parties’ relationship, the property contributions or Evans’s knowledge of the 2004 hearing.
The High Court granted the motion to extend time to file and serve the notice of appeal. It directed counsel to address costs and whether security was required in connection with continuing the injunction, either by agreement or court order. The judgment does not determine the eventual appeal or alter the Circuit Court award at this stage.