The Court of Appeal has refused an application to extend the time for appealing a High Court decision that declined to order the release of a BMW X5 seized by gardaí.
The application concerned a 2022 registered BMW X5. The High Court had refused an interlocutory injunction requiring the defendants to release the vehicle. The applicant then sought more time to appeal that refusal. The Court of Appeal heard the extension application on 6 March 2025 and delivered judgment on 14 March.
The car was seized after the applicant was stopped on 11 August 2023 while driving at 155km/h in a 120km/h zone. The evidence before the High Court was that he had no driving licence and produced a card described as being from the “Irish Republican Brotherhood”. Gardaí also found no tax disc, and a check showed the vehicle had never been taxed. The judgment says it was seized under road traffic legislation after a garda formed the opinion that an applicable offence had been committed.
The applicant argued that the legislation did not apply to him, describing himself in an affidavit as a “Sovereign Living Man”. He also disputed the requirement to pay charges to recover the vehicle. The Court of Appeal described that legal position as untenable. It noted that the account of the stop in an affidavit from a Garda inspector had not been contradicted on oath.
The High Court had found a serious issue to be tried concerning the constitutionality of legislation governing the impounding of vehicles for non-payment of motor tax. But it found the applicant had not shown the strong case required for a mandatory injunction, given the presumption that legislation is constitutional. It also concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience did not favour an injunction. The applicant could seek the car’s release by establishing registered ownership and/or paying the detention charges, the High Court said.
In seeking extra time, the applicant relied on criteria including an arguable ground of appeal. The Court of Appeal said he had not identified a basis on which the High Court’s ruling could conceivably be reversed. It also noted that the Attorney General, whom the judgment said would have to be joined in a challenge to legislation, was not a party to the proceedings. The court refused the extension, holding that facilitating an appeal would not serve the interests of justice.
The court’s provisional view was that the respondents were entitled to their costs. It allowed the applicant until 28 March 2025 to submit a written argument for a different costs order, with replies due by 9 April. The judgment does not determine the final costs order.