The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Tucker’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing him leave to seek judicial review of orders arising from possession proceedings over an apartment in Clontarf.
In a judgment delivered on 7 February 2022, Mr Justice Noonan said Tucker was seeking to challenge the original possession order and later orders in related equity proceedings. The court was hearing an appeal from the High Court’s refusal of leave, rather than deciding a new appeal on the merits of the possession claim.
Permanent TSB sold the mortgage loan associated with the apartment to Havbell DAC in 2015. Havbell obtained a possession order from the County Registrar in May 2018. The Circuit Court affirmed it on appeal, and the High Court later dismissed Tucker’s appeal against the possession order.
After Havbell took possession in March 2019, Tucker re-entered the apartment, the judgment says. In related proceedings, he gave the Circuit Court a sworn undertaking to leave by 25 July 2019. The court also granted injunctions. The judgment recounts Havbell’s uncontradicted evidence that, when its sheriff’s agent later attended the property, a group said they were there to prevent an eviction and the agent left fearing an ambush.
The dispute continued through attachment and committal proceedings. In June 2021, gardaí arrested Tucker under an attachment order and brought him before the Circuit Court. He gave sworn undertakings to comply with the possession order and ensure others left the premises. Havbell’s counsel later told the court that the apartment had been vacated.
Tucker’s judicial review application sought to challenge the validity of the possession orders, including on the basis that Havbell had not properly acquired the mortgage and loan. The Court of Appeal said the application was out of time: the latest order in contention predated the application by more than three months, and Tucker had not sought an extension. It nevertheless considered his grounds.
The court held that the title challenge had not been raised when the possession orders were made or appealed, and could not now be used to reopen final orders. It also rejected the other grounds as incapable of affecting the courts’ jurisdiction. The attachment order had been executed and was spent, making the complaint about it moot.
The court concluded that Tucker had shown no arguable ground for judicial review and dismissed his appeal. It did not reconsider the merits of the original possession claim.