The High Court has set aside a default judgment obtained by Everyday Finance DAC and two receivers against Paul White, Jane Gleeson and unnamed occupants of a Blackrock property, allowing the defendants an opportunity to defend the proceedings.
Mr Justice Oisín Quinn ruled on 10 November 2023 that special circumstances justified setting aside the judgment entered on 27 February 2023. He also vacated a hearing set for assessment of damages and relief. The court left costs conditions and directions for progressing the case to a further hearing.
The plaintiffs claim rights to possession of 96 Avoca Park, Blackrock, under loan facilities and mortgage securities originally agreed with AIB. They say €2.75 million was advanced in 2008 and remained unpaid after default. Those matters remain claims in the underlying proceedings; the November ruling did not determine them.
The judgment followed an earlier interlocutory dispute. In 2020, the High Court ordered the defendants to surrender possession, but the Court of Appeal set that order aside in June 2022. In that appeal, the court concluded the plaintiffs had not met the required threshold of a “strong case” and raised issues including whether the receivers were validly appointed and whether Jane Gleeson had consented to continuing mortgage security. Those observations concerned the interlocutory application, not a final trial of the claims.
The defendants’ former solicitors failed to attend the February 2023 motion for judgment. The evidence indicated they had mistakenly believed it was listed for 27 April. Mr Justice Quinn also found that the papers supporting the plaintiffs’ motion omitted letters exchanged in December 2022. One letter from the defendants’ solicitors complained about the receivers’ continued possession after the appeal; the plaintiffs’ reply gave a further 28 days to deliver a defence and said the dispute would have to be determined at trial. The judge said the earlier letters presented to the court could give the impression that no response had been received.
The judge treated the solicitors’ mistake, the omitted correspondence and the existing Court of Appeal judgment as special circumstances. He found little prejudice to the plaintiffs from reopening the case, while refusing the defendants a chance to defend could risk injustice. He assumed the omissions were inadvertent and did not decide whether the receivers were entitled to remain in possession after the Court of Appeal order was set aside, as that question was not before him.