The High Court granted Joseph Cleary judgment in default of defence in ejectment proceedings concerning a residence in Ballyfermot, County Dublin, after allowing his appeal from a Circuit Court decision that it lacked jurisdiction to make the order.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 20 July 2017. The appeal was a full rehearing. Mary Cleary, Joseph Cleary’s sister, had been served but did not attend the appeal hearing, and no one appeared for her. She had entered an appearance in the proceedings in May 2014, but no defence was filed despite repeated efforts by her brother to obtain one.
The judgment recounts that Joseph Cleary and his parents permitted his sister to live at the property from around 1999. She moved to social housing around 2002, then returned with their permission. The parents, who were registered owners with Joseph, later died. Joseph demanded possession in January 2011 and March 2014. At the time of the application hearing in May 2017, his sister remained living at the property.
The Circuit Court judge had accepted that Joseph Cleary’s papers were in order but declined to grant default judgment, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction. The High Court held that it could grant the order on each of three alternative bases.
First, it found that section 45 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which had commenced in 2017, gave the Circuit Court jurisdiction in ejectment actions where the land’s market value did not exceed €3 million. Evidence before the High Court put the property’s market value at about €140,000 and almost certainly below €175,000.
Second, the court found that section 82 of the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Act 1851 applied to a permissive occupant who had been asked to leave and refused or failed to give up possession. It held that this jurisdiction remained available and had no applicable monetary limit.
Third, a valuation certificate under section 67 of the Valuation Act 2001 placed the property’s rateable valuation at €57.50, within the relevant Circuit Court limit.
The High Court therefore granted judgment in default of defence on the hearing date. The judgment records that the order had already issued then; it explains the court’s reasons for granting it. It does not describe a defence or substantive response by Mary Cleary to the claim.