The Court of Appeal has dismissed Angela Oman’s appeal against the striking out of her claim to an interest in premises at 114/116 Capel Street, Dublin, and allowed Allied Irish Banks plc and receiver Stephen Tennant’s appeal against a stay on an injunction concerning the property. It also dismissed Ms Oman’s cross-appeal against the injunction.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McGovern on 16 October 2019, concerned two connected appeals. One challenged a High Court order striking out Ms Oman’s proceedings against her husband, James Oman, the bank, Mr Tennant and Everyday Finance DAC. The other concerned an injunction restraining her from entering or attending the premises and requiring her to hand over keys and access and alarm codes for the second floor, where she had been residing.
The injunction had been stayed pending the outcome of Ms Oman’s appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the stay should not have been granted. It said the High Court had not adequately addressed whether she had an arguable ground of appeal or explained why a stay would cause the bank and receiver little prejudice. The court allowed the bank and receiver’s appeal; because Ms Oman’s other appeal was dismissed, the stay also lapsed.
The dispute followed a 2004 mortgage over 114/116 Capel Street, which James Oman had offered as security for a €1.2 million commercial loan. His family home declaration stated that the property was not a family home and that no one else had an interest in it. The family was then living at Belgrave Square, Rathmines. The bank later obtained judgment against him for €1,622,649.75, and a possession order was made by consent in 2017, with a stay until 1 June 2018.
Ms Oman claimed she had contributed to the property’s purchase and held an interest in it, including in an apartment at 115 Capel Street. The Court of Appeal said the mortgage and related documents described the security as 114/116 Capel Street without separately identifying number 115. It also found she knew about the possession proceedings before the 2017 hearing but did not intervene. The court said the bank had no reason at the time of the mortgage to believe she held an interest and was entitled to rely on her husband’s declaration.
The court agreed with the High Court that Ms Oman had no arguable case capable of defeating the bank’s and receiver’s rights, and that any claim would also face acquiescence and delay. It dismissed her appeal. The court noted that abuse of process was not a basis on which the High Court’s decision could be upheld because the respondents had not cross-appealed on that ground, though the judge said he would have found the proceedings abusive if that issue had been properly before the court.