The High Court refused John M. Searson’s application for an early trial of his action against Dublin City Council, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to make the order under the procedure he used. The court also said the pleadings had not closed because the council had not filed a defence.
Mr Searson, representing himself, says defective refurbishment works carried out at his council home in March 2010 left it uninhabitable. He alleges that doors and windows were improperly fitted and that work in the kitchen and bathroom, particularly the kitchen floor, was defective. Those are allegations in the underlying dispute; this application concerned the timing of a trial.
The judgment records that Mr Searson had previously sought an early trial in February 2019. The judge said that refusal did not prevent a later application, particularly because the earlier perfected court order did not record the refusal of that specific relief and circumstances could change over time.
The council opposed the renewed application. Its counsel argued that the relevant rule, Order 50, rule 2, allowed an early trial to be directed when the court was hearing an interlocutory matter, and that Mr Searson had not brought such an application. Counsel also said the pleadings were incomplete and the council was out of time to file a defence, for which it intended to seek an extension.
The judge accepted the council’s submissions on jurisdiction and the state of the pleadings. Without a defence, the council’s position had not been set out and the issues for trial were not yet known. The court therefore refused the early-trial relief sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice of motion.
The judgment notes that the parties had been engaged in mediation, which the judge was told had progressed reasonably well. The court invited Mr Searson to re-engage under the Mediation Act 2017, but he declined. The judge said the court could invite mediation but could not compel a party to take part.
The judge directed Dublin City Council to issue, within three weeks, a motion seeking an extension of time to file its defence. The judgment did not determine the underlying allegations about the condition of the home. It also made no order on other reliefs in the notice of motion: Mr Searson did not pursue those at the hearing, and he said he no longer required an order allowing his architects to inspect the property.