The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Jason Hayde against a refusal to let him seek an execution order on a 2011 judgment against H & T Contractors Limited. The court said the delay was attributable solely to inaction by the party seeking to enforce the judgment.
The dispute arose from the construction of a dwelling under a contract between Hayde and the company. Hayde alleged the construction work was defective. In 2011, he obtained judgment in default of appearance. Damages were assessed at €22,408, plus costs to be taxed if not agreed.
The costs were assessed at €15,258.08 on 17 October 2014, but the certificate recording them was not taken up until 1 July 2020. No enforcement step had been taken before then. The company’s solicitors said in an affidavit that their firm eventually paid €1,190 to obtain the certificate, explaining that the expense had been a low priority given the difficulty of recovering such money.
Because more than six years had passed since the judgment, Hayde needed the court’s permission to seek an execution order under the Circuit Court Rules. The Circuit Court refused his application on 13 October 2020. He appealed to the High Court, where the company did not appear, although affidavits confirmed it had been served with the appeal and hearing notice.
Justice Garrett Simons said a creditor seeking leave after six years must provide a good reason for the delay. The court need not be given unusual or exceptional reasons, but the threshold must still be met. Examples in earlier cases included delay caused by the debtor, a reasonable belief that the debtor could not pay, or time spent trying to agree alternative payment arrangements. Delay in completing the taxation of costs could also potentially provide a reason.
Here, however, taxation had been completed in 2014. The remaining delay resulted from a decision not to take up the certificate. The court found no evidence that the company’s financial circumstances had changed or that there was another explanation for the delay. It concluded that the required threshold had not been met.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the appeal and the application for leave remained refused. It did not consider whether the company had suffered prejudice, because the delay threshold had not been met. The court made no costs order in the company’s favour, as it had not appeared at the hearing and had incurred no recoverable costs.