The Court of Appeal has dismissed Daniel Lannon’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing him leave to seek judicial review of a Circuit Court possession order in favour of AIB Mortgage Bank.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 24 February 2020, the court said the issues raised by Mr Lannon were either matters for the original possession hearing or could have been raised there. Disagreement with the Circuit Court’s findings, or an alleged error of law within its jurisdiction, did not establish a basis for judicial review.
AIB’s possession proceedings concerned a Dublin 17 home bought with a €250,000 mortgage in 2005. The Court of Appeal judgment records that €273,258.21 was due in October 2013, including arrears of €57,212.87. After payments stopped in November 2008, the bank demanded payment and possession in November 2013, then issued a possession civil bill in the Dublin Circuit Court.
Mr Lannon disputed aspects of the loan and the bank’s conduct, including the interest rate, payment protection insurance and a private investigator’s visit to an address where he was living. He also alleged that his personal data had been unlawfully accessed. The bank disputed his claims. The Court of Appeal noted that he had not disputed during the Circuit Court proceedings that the property was his principal private residence until the end of the possession hearing.
At that hearing, Mr Lannon challenged the bank employee’s authority to swear affidavits and cross-examined him. The Circuit Court accepted that he was an employee entitled to do so. Mr Lannon then argued that the property was let to tenants and was no longer his principal private residence. The Circuit Court accepted the bank’s submission that the relevant status was assessed by reference to the parties’ intention when the loan was made, and granted possession. The Court of Appeal said counsel had named the wrong case when making that submission, but had stated the correct legal principle.
Rather than appeal the possession order to the High Court, where the matter could have received a full rehearing, Mr Lannon sought judicial review. The High Court refused leave, finding no arguable ground. The Court of Appeal said judicial review concerns the lawfulness of a decision, not whether it was correct, and the complaints presented an attempted appeal on the merits. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not alter or reconsider the possession order itself.