The Supreme Court has refused to allow the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court to withdraw an appeal involving Ann Clohessy while related proceedings challenging her wardship remain unresolved.
In a ruling delivered on 9 October 2018, the court said the appeal should not be withdrawn at this stage. It directed that the matter be listed for mention alongside other appeals before the court, so it could be reconsidered in light of those cases.
The appeal, which had been in abeyance since 2011, concerns orders setting aside steps that had substituted Ann Clohessy for her late estranged husband, Peter Clohessy, as plaintiff in proceedings over possession of lands in County Cork. The Supreme Court said the appeal was not from a substantive hearing, but arose from a High Court decision made in connection with a Circuit Court appeal.
The court recounted that Peter Clohessy’s daughter Valerie Coleman and her husband, Fintan Coleman, were named as executors in his 2008 will. The will left his property to Valerie, with €1,000 bequests to each of his estranged wife Ann and another daughter, Veronica Clohessy. Proceedings to prove the will in solemn form remained unresolved, the court said.
Ann Clohessy was made a ward of court in August 2016, with the General Solicitor appointed as committee of her estate and person. Acting under a High Court direction, the General Solicitor sought to withdraw the appeal. Patrick Clohessy objected.
At the hearing, Patrick Clohessy produced a separate plenary summons seeking, among other relief, to challenge the legal basis of wardship and to set aside wardship orders concerning Ann. Those proceedings had not been heard. An appeal relating to an interlocutory application in that case was before the Court of Appeal, and an appeal against an order restraining Patrick Clohessy from bringing proceedings on the subject was also pending, according to the ruling.
The Supreme Court said it was difficult to see the benefit of continuing the appeal and noted questions about whether it could be maintained. It did not decide those questions. The court said that if a challenge to the wardship jurisdiction or its application succeeded, it might be argued that the appeal could be reinstated. Since withdrawal would not finally end the satellite litigation, the court considered it would not advance matters to permit withdrawal before the related proceedings or appeals were resolved.
The ruling did not determine the validity of the wardship order or the underlying appeal. It left the appeal pending for later consideration alongside other cases under case management.