The High Court has refused Niamh Eustace’s application to extend the time for appealing a possession order made against her in November 2021. Ms Justice Bolger ruled on 22 April 2025 that the lengthy delay and the evidence before the court did not justify allowing a late appeal.
Eustace applied in August 2023. She said she had been her disabled husband’s full-time carer, represented herself and did not understand the requirements for an appeal. She also argued that she had an arguable defence and said her husband had not been notified of the proceedings. He did not take part or provide an affidavit; the judge said any application on his behalf was a matter for him and did not base her decision on that issue.
The possession order was made by a County Registrar on 15 November 2021. Eustace had earlier applied to have it nullified, but the Circuit Court dismissed that motion in October 2022. The High Court noted that the nullification motion, filed on 3 May 2022, was already outside the 10-day appeal period.
Eustace said a solicitor advised her in early 2023 that the plaintiff, Start Mortgages DAC, should have provided the court with the mortgage deed and a deed of assignment showing how the alleged debt was transferred. She challenged the heavily redacted assignment exhibited by the plaintiff and said the original mortgage deed had not been shown to the County Registrar. She relied on a 2024 High Court decision involving Start Mortgages.
Start Mortgages argued that Eustace had not shown she formed an intention to appeal within the required 10 days, and that she needed to establish a strong case given the delay. It relied on the folio showing it as registered owner of the charge and evidence that no mortgage payment had been made since 2014, with substantial arrears. It submitted that it had met the test for possession.
Justice Bolger found Eustace had not established a strong defence, particularly in light of the folio. She added that there was no evidence she had formed an intention to appeal within 10 days or that a mistake had been made. The judge acknowledged Eustace’s difficult domestic circumstances but said neither her caring responsibilities nor her status as a self-represented litigant formed part of the legal test.
The court refused the extension application. It listed the matter for 10am on 29 April 2025 for final orders, with any written submissions to be filed at least 48 hours beforehand. The judgment does not state what final orders were subsequently made.