The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Larkin’s appeal against two High Court decisions concerning the correction of an order that ended proceedings over a property in Clonsilla, Dublin 15. It ordered Larkin to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal, with the amount to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree.
The underlying case was brought in 2017 by Tom Kavanagh, identified in the judgment as a receiver, and Tanager Designated Activity Company. They claimed the Larkins had fallen behind on a loan secured against the property, that the loan and security had vested in Tanager, and that the defendants had not handed over the property and had interfered with the receivership. Those were the respondents’ claims, not findings on the appeal.
On 26 April 2021, the High Court dismissed a motion by the defendants seeking contempt orders against the respondents and others, and awarded the respondents costs of that motion. Neither that decision nor its costs order was appealed. The High Court then struck out the respondents’ motion and the proceedings after they said the property had been taken into possession and sold. The court directed the respondents to pay the defendants’ outlay, subject to setting it off against the costs awarded to the respondents on the defendants’ dismissed motion.
The order formally drawn up the next day recorded only that the motion had been struck out. In December 2021, the High Court used the slip rule, Order 28, rule 11, to correct the record so it also reflected that the proceedings themselves had been struck out. It made no order on costs for that correction application. It also refused a separate motion by the defendants seeking, among other things, an order that the judge had acted improperly and interfered with the course of justice.
The Court of Appeal said the transcript showed the High Court had struck out both the motion and the action in April 2021, and held that the correction properly recorded what the judge had decided. It rejected Larkin’s arguments that the respondents needed a formal motion to discontinue and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction. It also dismissed the challenge to the refusal of the defendants’ motion.
The court stressed that the validity of the receiver’s appointment and the amount owed on the loan had not been adjudicated. The appeal concerned the later decisions about the motions and the court record; it did not determine those underlying disputes. The court dismissed the appeal in full and ordered Larkin to pay the respondents’ appeal costs.