The Court of Appeal has extended Anne Govan’s time to appeal a High Court interlocutory order concerning two Killarney properties. It gave her three weeks from perfection of the Court of Appeal order to lodge an appeal on four grounds. Two other proposed grounds must be removed, and one ground must be refined to address a statutory argument.
The High Court order, made on 7 July 2022, restrained Ms Govan from interfering with Ken Tyrrell’s work as receiver over 1 Castle Falls, Ross Road, and 38 New Street. It also required her to hand over keys and access devices. The High Court granted the plaintiffs’ application for interlocutory relief and costs; it did not determine the underlying action at trial.
Ms Govan did not appeal within the 28-day period, which expired on 19 August 2022. She applied for an extension on 30 August. The plaintiffs did not seriously dispute that she had formed an intention to appeal in time or met the second requirement for an extension. The dispute centred on whether she had an arguable appeal ground.
The Court of Appeal found four of her six proposed grounds arguable. They concern whether the plaintiffs gave the express written notice of an assignment required by section 28(6) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877; whether the High Court applied the correct test to relief that may have been mandatory in substance; whether the receiver’s appointment complied with statutory requirements, including section 24(2) of the Conveyancing Act 1881; and alleged delay in seeking the injunction.
The court rejected the proposed grounds concerning Ms Govan’s lack of legal representation when an undertaking was supplied and the discontinuance of earlier proceedings, and whether the High Court gave too much weight to the absence of new proceedings challenging the receiver’s appointment. It said those grounds were not arguable at the required threshold. The court did not decide the merits of the four permitted grounds; they may be advanced in the appeal.
In extending time, the court considered the arguable grounds, the timing of Ms Govan’s application and the absence of undue prejudice to the plaintiffs. It also noted that the injunction could be determinative of the proceedings and that an appeal raised arguable questions about the receiver’s appointment. The judgment records that Ms Govan’s challenge to the appointment remains an issue that may be raised in her defence or counterclaim.
The court proposed that Ms Govan receive her costs of the extension application, with entry and execution stayed pending the appeal and any further period the appellate court decides. Parties had 21 days from electronic delivery to seek a different costs order; otherwise the proposed order would be drawn and perfected.