The Court of Appeal has refused Colm Murphy’s application to extend the time to appeal a High Court consent order made in 2017, finding that the application was misconceived and brought after an unexplained delay of more than five years.
The application concerned an order made by Kelly P. on 11 December 2017, which limited Murphy’s claim against the Law Society of Ireland to matters in his amended statement of claim and updated particulars. Murphy argued that the Society had failed to disclose documents and information, and that he would not have consented to the order if he had known of them.
The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by Noonan J. on 12 December 2023, reviewed Murphy’s proposed grounds, including a 1997 letter about solicitor Tim Healy’s accounts, documents produced during the 2018 trial, and emails relating to an attachment and committal application. Murphy said these materials supported further claims against the Society and that the 2017 order had prevented him from amending his case.
The court rejected that explanation. It said the 2017 order was a case management order that could have been revisited, and Murphy could have applied to amend his pleadings when the materials came to light. The judgment noted that the High Court had already considered several of the complaints in its principal judgment and a later judgment refusing to review it. Those findings remain in place unless overturned on appeal.
The court also found that Murphy had not adequately explained why he waited until May 2023 to seek an extension. It said the proposed grounds did not meet the required threshold of arguability after such a lengthy delay. The court further noted that the 2017 order had been made by consent, limiting the circumstances in which it could be appealed.
Noonan J. concluded that the application would amount to a collateral attack on High Court judgments that were themselves under appeal, and dismissed it. Faherty and Meenan JJ. agreed.
On costs, the court gave a provisional view that the Society should receive its costs because it had succeeded. Murphy was given 21 days to make written submissions on costs, with the Society allowed a further 21 days to respond. The judgment said an order in the proposed terms would follow if no submissions were received.