The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gabriel Dooley’s appeal over the refusal to extend time for him to challenge a €10,000 fine imposed by the Property Services Regulatory Authority (PSRA). It held that the statutory 30-day appeal limit was absolute. The court also found that, even if it had power to extend time, the circumstances did not justify doing so.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Butler on 21 October 2024, concerned the timing of a proposed appeal, not a rehearing of the PSRA’s finding of improper conduct. The High Court had refused Dooley’s application to appeal late and held that the time limit could not be extended. The Court of Appeal affirmed that order.
The PSRA imposed the fine after finding that Dooley had withdrawn fees from a €50,000 booking deposit held in his client account before the sale of land in Kilpedder, County Wicklow, was completed. The land sale did not proceed. A separate allegation concerned an undertaking to the High Court that the deposit would remain held, although the funds were no longer in the account. The PSRA accepted the inspectors’ factual findings on that allegation but did not find it amounted to improper conduct.
The fine was a “major sanction” under the legislation and required High Court confirmation before taking effect. The PSRA’s letter of 28 October 2022 told Dooley he had 30 days from receiving notice to appeal and included the text of the statutory provision. He did not appeal within that period. The PSRA later applied to the High Court for confirmation; Dooley then sought an extension of time to appeal.
Dooley argued that the time limit could be extended under the Rules of the Superior Courts, relying in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Kirwan v O’Leary*. The PSRA argued that the regulatory scheme made the deadline absolute. The Court of Appeal considered the statutory wording alongside the scheme requiring the PSRA to seek confirmation if no appeal was brought within the prescribed period. It concluded that allowing a late appeal after that process had begun would create parallel proceedings, contrary to the scheme.
The court also considered the delay. The appeal deadline expired on 30 November 2022, and Dooley did not issue his extension motion until 28 June 2023. The court accepted that there was an argument about whether inspectors had used the proper statutory power to obtain his bank statements, but held that this point did not outweigh the lengthy delay, the absence of a credible explanation, and the availability of an opportunity to raise legal issues in the High Court confirmation proceedings.
The appeal was dismissed. The court proposed that Dooley pay the PSRA’s appeal costs, subject to either party filing submissions seeking a different costs order within the stated time limits.