Judgment: 2025-06-18 · Court archive

High Court refuses bid to reopen €1,250 company debt case after Circuit Court appeal struck out

High Court · [2025] IEHC 338

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Blake Jones (Applicant)
  • Saliu Obisesan (Respondent)
  • The Game Changer Multimedia Ltd
What

High Court refuses bid to reopen €1,250 company debt case after Circuit Court appeal struck out

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Garrett Simons refused Blake Jones leave to seek judicial review. He also rejected an attempt to substitute the company as applicant and expand the proceedings to challenge a later Circuit Court ruling.

The High Court has refused an attempt to reopen a €1,250 debt case involving The Game Changer Multimedia Ltd after its appeal to the Circuit Court was struck out when nobody appeared on the company's behalf.

Mr Justice Garrett Simons refused Blake Jones leave to seek judicial review. He also rejected an attempt to substitute the company as applicant and expand the proceedings to challenge a later Circuit Court ruling.

Saliu Obisesan obtained a District Court decree against The Game Changer Multimedia Ltd for €1,250 on 19 February 2024. The company appealed, but when the matter came before the Circuit Court on 14 May 2024 there was no appearance for the company and the appeal was struck out. A decree after appeal was entered on 2 July.

The company subsequently applied to the Circuit Court to set aside the striking-out order and to stay enforcement. On 5 November 2024, the Circuit Court refused relief. The judge expressed the view that he could not set aside an order made by another Circuit Court judge and suggested judicial review might be the available remedy.

Mr Jones, who says he is a director and shareholder of the company, filed High Court proceedings on 15 November 2024 in his own name. The court found that this created two fundamental problems.

First, the only order originally challenged was the 14 May decision, meaning the proceedings were commenced about six months later and outside the three-month judicial review limit. Second, Mr Jones had not been a party to the debt case. The company is a separate legal entity, so his position as director and shareholder did not give him sufficient legal interest to challenge its judgment personally.

After solicitors came on record in April 2025, the company sought to replace Mr Jones as applicant and add a challenge to the November ruling. The High Court refused, holding that substitution could not be used to circumvent the expired time limit.

Leave for judicial review was refused. No costs order was made because the application was heard without notice to Mr Obisesan.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review