The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by John M. Harrington concerning High Court proceedings over land in Galway, which had already stood dismissed after he failed to deliver a statement of claim required by an unless order.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Barniville on 10 March 2022, explains that Harrington appealed an order made on 1 November 2021 transferring his case to the High Court’s Commercial List, and a 20 December order confirming that the proceedings had been dismissed. He did not appeal the separate 6 December unless order, which gave him ten days to deliver a statement of claim or the proceedings would stand dismissed. He did not deliver one.
The Court said that omission created an “insurmountable problem” for the appeals: the proceedings had ended under the unless order, and appealing the other orders could not undo that result. It nevertheless considered the challenges to both orders and found no error of law or incorrect exercise of discretion.
Harrington’s underlying claim, as described in the judgment, was that he had rights under a lease with a previous owner, disputed the defendants’ title to the lands and alleged that the defendants or their agents entered the lands in May 2021 and removed property, animals and livestock, causing damage. He sought, among other relief, orders restricting access and development. These were claims in the proceedings; the Court of Appeal was deciding procedural appeals, not determining their merits.
The defendants said the lands had been bought by Corestone 16 Limited in April 2021 for €5.3 million, with the sale completed around 6 May. Corestone was not a party to the case before the Court of Appeal. The defendants argued that Harrington’s claims could affect development plans and had serious commercial implications.
The Court upheld the decision to place the case in the Commercial List, finding that the evidence supported treating it as commercial proceedings. It also rejected Harrington’s complaints about service, remote hearings, due process and alleged judicial bias. The judgment said the High Court judge had been entitled to proceed after finding the applications and orders had been properly served, and that the absence of a stay meant the earlier order remained in effect.
The appeals were dismissed. The Court’s view that the defendants should receive the costs of the appeals was provisional; it said costs and any other required orders would be dealt with at a later hearing.