The Court of Appeal dismissed Balford Construction Limited’s appeal over how the High Court arranged motions in Bank of Ireland’s claim for more than €2.7 million. It held the appeal was moot after Balford abandoned its own motion, and said the appeal could have no practical effect on a live dispute.
Bank of Ireland’s 2019 summary summons sought €2,751,216.74, said to be due under two loan facilities repayable on demand. The bank later asked the High Court to amend the summons to provide particulars of the claim and sought summary judgment for €2,661,194.73, after proceeds from security had been applied to the account.
Balford brought a motion in June 2021 seeking to strike out the part of the claim stating that the loans were repayable on demand. It argued that allegation was untrue and prejudicial to a fair trial. The bank’s motion and Balford’s motion were listed together for directions. The High Court did not order that either motion be heard first.
Balford appealed the listing decision, arguing that the High Court judge had wrongly moved its motion to the non-jury list and ordered that both motions travel together. The Court of Appeal said appellate courts will be slow to interfere with the High Court’s management of its lists. It also rejected the suggestion that this restraint applied only to cases under formal case management.
Balford’s motion was later abandoned. The High Court then granted the bank leave to amend the summons and entered judgment against Balford for €2,661,194. The appeal did not challenge that judgment. The Court of Appeal noted that Balford’s requested relief had shifted in its written submissions, which sought, among other things, an order directing the High Court to hear the abandoned motion.
The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot because deciding it could no longer affect any live controversy between the parties. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not state that the Court of Appeal made a costs order.