The High Court allowed the fourth-named defendant in a long-running dispute over ownership of Athlone Town Stadium to rely on an affidavit filed on 31 October 2019. The court also confirmed that Prospect Law Solicitors had ceased acting for the third-named defendant and set deadlines ahead of a further hearing on the first-named defendant’s motion to vacate an order made on 23 May 2019.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 4 November 2019. The latest hearing concerned procedural steps in the motion by Athlone Town Stadium Limited, the first-named defendant, to set aside the May order and seek related relief. That motion had been partly addressed in an earlier judgment dated 15 October 2019. The court did not decide the substantive motion in this judgment.
The fourth-named defendant, Paddy McCaul, had filed an affidavit on 31 October. The first-named defendant objected that it should have been filed by its solicitors and initially also challenged its late delivery. The late-filing objection was withdrawn after an explanation that a computer system problem had prevented the affidavit being emailed on 30 October; it was posted the following day and did not arrive in time.
The first-named defendant argued that the second-named defendant had no dispute with the fourth-named defendant, so the fourth-named defendant should not file an affidavit on his own behalf. The judge rejected that objection, finding that the fourth-named defendant was an affected party with personal obligations under a settlement agreement and that relief had been sought against him. He was therefore entitled to the rights of a defendant in the proceedings.
The judge also heard a hearsay objection to part of McCaul’s affidavit, which appeared to rely on information from his solicitor, Colm MacGeehin. Rather than determine admissibility at that point, the judge allowed MacGeehin to file a further affidavit based on non-hearsay evidence by 11 November. The first-named defendant was directed to respond to the fourth-named defendant’s evidence and file an outline submission by 18 November. Any affidavit from the third-named defendant, Keiran Temple, was also due that day if he wished to participate.
The fourth-named defendant’s outline submission was due by 25 November. The motion was listed for hearing on 29 November, with relevant deponents to be available for cross-examination, except the plaintiff, David Dully, who was not required for cross-examination on his 25 October affidavit. The first-named defendant’s application for costs was adjourned until the motion concludes.