The High Court has refused an application by Gerard McCoy’s wife to join a €160,000 property dispute as a co-defendant, after judgment had already been entered against Mr McCoy in default of appearance.
Ms Justice Butler said the applicant could not seek to defend the case in full without addressing the status of the existing judgment. She had not applied to have it set aside. The court did not decide whether the applicant owned an interest in the disputed site, whether it formed part of her family home, or what final relief should be granted to Fergus Slattery.
Mr Slattery began proceedings in March 2015, seeking to recover €160,000 from Mr McCoy and a declaration that he had an equitable interest in a development site at Taney Park, County Dublin. Mr McCoy did not enter an appearance. In December 2015, the High Court granted judgment in default and adjourned assessment of damages. A planned hearing in 2016 did not proceed after the assigned judge retired.
The site is part of a folio that also includes Dael Lodge, described in the judgment as the applicant’s family home. The applicant said she and her husband had bought the Taney Park land and built their home there. In September 2015, before the default judgment, the husband transferred the property into their joint names. The transfer was registered in November. Neither the applicant nor her husband told Mr Slattery about it before judgment was entered, and the court found no evidence that Mr Slattery knew of the change in ownership.
The applicant argued that her claimed property rights justified joinder. Mr Slattery disputed the transfer’s validity and the applicant’s claim that the development site was part of the family home. He also argued that the applicant’s request could not be considered while the default judgment remained in place. The judge said the judgment was a High Court judgment, not merely an enabling or procedural order, and remained effective unless set aside or varied.
The judge noted that the applicant wanted to dispute the agreement between Mr Slattery and Mr McCoy, despite not being a party to it. She said the appropriate course would be to seek to set aside the judgment and, if successful, seek joinder; both requests could be made in one motion. The court did not assess whether such an application would succeed, saying the disputed facts and applicable legal test required a specific application and evidence.
The applicant’s motion also sought joinder in another capacity. The judge did not examine that request in detail, noting the applicant had not seriously pursued limited participation and that the same issue about the existing judgment arose. The application was refused. The ruling did not determine the merits of the underlying property dispute or the applicant’s separate proceedings concerning a lis pendens registered over the site.