The Court of Appeal has refused Neil Armstrong an extension of time to appeal a High Court order concerning possession of a property in County Kildare. It found that he had not shown an arguable ground of appeal, a bona fide intention to appeal within the deadline or a relevant mistake.
The application concerned a High Court judgment and order made on 20 October 2023, which refused a motion by Mr Armstrong and his wife to set aside an earlier possession judgment. Mrs Armstrong was not a party to the appeal-time application. The Court of Appeal heard the application on 9 April 2024.
The underlying proceedings were brought by Promontoria (Finn) Limited and receiver Damien Harper. They sought possession of a dwelling house in County Kildare, over which Promontoria held a registered charge, and an injunction preventing interference with the receiver’s possession and efforts to sell it. The respondents said the property had been rented to tenants and was no longer the defendants’ family home. Mr Armstrong disputed that account and said he had lived there since his marriage broke down.
The High Court granted possession to the respondents in December 2022, with execution stayed for six months. After the defendants’ motion to set that judgment aside was refused in October 2023, Mr Armstrong had 28 days to appeal. His extension application was issued on 18 December, more than a month after the deadline.
The proposed appeal focused on objective bias. Mr Armstrong argued that the High Court judge should have recused herself because she had previously been a partner and chair of A&L Goodbody, which he alleged had acted for Promontoria in an earlier matter involving loan and security transfers. The judge said her former firm had no involvement in this litigation and that she had never personally acted for the plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeal said that even prior professional work for a party would not, without more, establish objective bias. It found no cogent link between the judge’s former firm and the case that could support a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court therefore held that the proposed appeal had no arguable ground and that this alone required refusal of the application.
It also found that the evidence did not establish a timely intention to appeal. Mr Armstrong relied on a letter dated 9 November 2023 from Paul Scannell, described as his third-party mediator, but the respondents’ solicitor said it was never received. Neither Mr Armstrong nor Mr Scannell filed an affidavit addressing that dispute. The letter said Mr Armstrong had intended to appeal but might do so later if efforts to resolve matters failed; the court considered that wording inconsistent with a current intention to appeal.
Mr Armstrong cited ill health and financial constraints but gave no detail. The court also rejected a claim, raised only in written submissions, that he had been waiting for a written judgment as a mistake. The application was dismissed. Justices Binchy and Butler agreed with Noonan J.’s judgment.