The High Court struck out Eileen Gunning’s case over Chrysanthemum Cottage as an abuse of process, finding that she had not produced evidence of fraud to reopen earlier decisions about the property. It also barred her from starting new proceedings concerning the cottage or the administration of her late parents’ estates without prior leave of the court.
The order was made by Mr Justice Hogan on 28 February 2012. The court said its restriction applies to new proceedings about the cottage’s ownership or possession and the administration of the estates. Leave must be sought in writing from the Chief Registrar for the President of the High Court or a judge nominated by him. The order does not cover existing proceedings, a possible appeal to the Supreme Court against this decision, or proceedings unrelated to the cottage and the estates.
Gunning had brought the present case in November 2010. Her claim alleged that earlier orders had been obtained by fraud. The defendant, solicitor Brian Sherry, who was appointed legal personal representative of her late father’s estate, applied to have the case struck out and sought an Isaac Wunder order restricting further litigation.
Earlier proceedings had resulted in orders concerning possession of the cottage and the administration of the estate. In 2009, the High Court, hearing an appeal from the Circuit Court, affirmed an order granting possession to Sherry in his representative capacity. Justice Hogan said that decision was binding unless fraud had been established.
At the February 2012 hearing, Gunning was given the opportunity to present evidence of fraud but did not do so. She and her representative sought a further two-month adjournment, which the judge refused after multiple adjournments and nearly eight months’ notice of the evidence required. The judgment records that Gunning and her representative left before the hearing ended. Justice Hogan concluded there was no evidence that the earlier decisions were wrong or tainted by fraud.
The judgment also considered Gunning’s claims that she had bought the property’s freehold reversion and had acquired ownership through adverse possession. It said that, even if she bought the reversion in 2001 while executrix, she would hold it on trust for the estate’s beneficiaries. The court found that the evidence did not establish the required period for adverse possession.
Justice Hogan said the restriction was warranted after repeated litigation concerning the cottage had delayed distribution of the estate and affected other beneficiaries. The case was struck out as an attempt to relitigate matters already determined.