The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ reliance on a statutory limit to the High Court’s jurisdiction, agreeing that their conduct in the proceedings prevented them from invoking it against the plaintiff.
In a judgment delivered on 2 March 2022, Mr Justice Maurice Collins said he agreed with Mr Justice Whelan’s judgment and proposed order. He emphasised that his agreement rested on the particular circumstances of the case.
The defendants had not objected to the plaintiff proceeding in the High Court or applied to have the case sent to the Circuit Court. Collins J said their silence might be characterised as acquiescence in the plaintiff’s choice of court. He added, however, that there was more than silence: the defendants brought a counterclaim that included a claim for damages exceeding the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. In his view, that represented clear acceptance and adoption of the High Court’s jurisdiction.
The judgment also addressed uncertainty at the time about whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction. That uncertainty was resolved by the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in *Permanent TSB plc v Langan*, but the High Court hearing in this case had already concluded by then. Collins J considered it harsh to assess the plaintiff’s decision to begin proceedings in the High Court with the benefit of that later clarification.
Applying the principle identified in *Murphy v Grealish*, Collins J concluded that, in these circumstances, the defendants were estopped by their conduct from relying on section 17(1) of the Courts Act 1981, as amended. He agreed that it would be unconscionable to allow them to do so.
The source excerpt records Collins J’s agreement with Whelan J’s judgment and proposed order; it does not state the terms of that order or provide the underlying dispute’s outcome.