The High Court has refused Thomas and Mary Langan’s application to introduce fresh evidence in their appeal concerning an order for possession. Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled that the documents relied on did not meet the requirements for fresh evidence on appeal because they did not exist at the time of the Circuit Court hearing.
The application was made under Order 61 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The main proceedings concern an appeal from a Circuit Court order for possession made by Judge John O’Connor on 10 February 2023. The High Court was deciding whether new material could be admitted; it was not determining the possession appeal itself.
Thomas Langan said letters from Hudson Advisors, dated 22 December 2023 and 19 January 2024, provided further information about the mortgage and the roles of companies involved. He argued the material related to the mortgage’s beneficial ownership and transfers, and that the defendants had not been able to present their full defence at the Circuit Court hearing. He also alleged that Start Mortgages had not complied with court rules and a practice direction concerning possession proceedings.
Start Mortgages’ counsel opposed the application, arguing that the defendants had not explained why the evidence was not submitted to the Circuit Court. He submitted that questions about securitisation and beneficial ownership were matters for the trial judge, and that there had been no transfer of the mortgage loan since the proceedings began. Those were submissions, not findings in this application.
Justice Bradley applied the three-part test in *Murphy v Minister for Defence*: the evidence must have existed at the time of trial and not have been obtainable with reasonable diligence; it must probably have an important influence on the result; and it must be apparently credible. He found the application did not satisfy Order 61. The data-protection request and subsequent correspondence arose after the Circuit Court hearing, as did the two Hudson Advisors letters. The judge said the material therefore did not fall within the special circumstances for admitting new evidence on appeal.
The court refused the defendants’ application for permission to introduce fresh evidence. It did not decide the underlying appeal or make a finding on the parties’ disputed positions about ownership or assignment. The judge proposed listing the matter for mention on 8 May 2024 to address any further consequential or ancillary matters.