The Court of Appeal has dismissed Justin Burke’s appeal against High Court orders for possession and sale of four properties in Roscam, Galway, finding that the High Court was entitled to proceed in his absence on 29 July 2024.
In a judgment delivered on 9 July 2025, Ms Justice Máire Whelan, with whom Ms Justices Faherty and Pilkington agreed, held that Burke had notice of the hearing and that no valid application to adjourn had been made. The court said the medical material before the High Court did not justify an adjournment: it lacked a prognosis and a timeframe for when Burke could attend, and no one appeared on his behalf to seek an adjournment.
The High Court had ordered Burke to deliver possession of lands comprising 22, 23, 24 and 25 Garrai Sheain, Roscam, and authorised their sale. The Court of Appeal left those orders undisturbed by dismissing the appeal. The High Court’s two-month stay on execution of the possession order remains part of the order; the appeal judgment explained that such a stay is a practical measure and does not show that the judge considered the absence of the defendant an error.
Burke argued that he had been medically unfit to attend, that the respondents’ lawyers had not properly brought his doctor’s evidence to the High Court’s attention, and that service and fair procedure were defective. The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It found that the medical evidence, including a doctor’s affidavit, had been before the High Court judge, and that the respondents had served the proceedings under a substituted-service order. The court also rejected allegations of bias against the trial judge.
The judgment reviewed earlier proceedings in which Burke had sought adjournments on medical grounds. It noted that in July 2023 a High Court judge had directed that more detailed medical evidence, including a prognosis and timeline, be provided. The Court of Appeal concluded that the material later relied on remained inadequate and that Burke had not identified a substantive basis for defending the possession claim.
The appeal court’s decision was limited to the grounds raised in the appeal, all of which it found unmade out. On costs, the court stated its provisional view that the respondents should recover their appeal costs. Burke may submit written reasons within 14 days of the judgment as to why he should not be liable; the respondents may then reply within a further 14 days. The court will decide costs after considering any submissions.