The Court of Appeal dismissed Harry McHugh’s appeals against High Court orders dealing with three motions in his long-running case over lands he owns in County Donegal. The court upheld the refusal to enter judgment against the defendants for delay in delivering their defence, the refusal to strike out that defence and the rejection of a motion seeking to prevent the defendants from pleading the Statute of Limitations.
The proceedings, issued in 2008, concern events dating back to 2003. McHugh alleges that the defendants took unlawful actions concerning his lands. The Court of Appeal said it would not summarise the underlying disputes.
The defendants were ordered to deliver a defence by 17 September 2018, but did not meet that deadline. The judgment records a dispute over when the defence was served: the defendants said it was sent by email and post on 28 September, while McHugh said he received it on 15 October, when a judge directed that it be served on him in court. The defence had been delivered before the High Court heard McHugh’s second motion for judgment in default.
The Court of Appeal said the case had changed substantially between McHugh’s first and second default motions because he had obtained permission to file a much expanded amended statement of claim. The court held that the rules did not require judgment against the defendants in those circumstances and found that the High Court judge had been entitled to extend the time for the defence. It dismissed that appeal.
The court also upheld the refusal to strike out the defence. It said a defendant need not answer every allegation in a statement of claim individually, though failing to deny a relevant allegation may leave it admitted at trial. Whether the defence adequately addressed the pleaded issues was a matter for trial, the court said, and any necessary amendment could have consequences for costs. Even a particular pleading defect would not, by itself, justify striking out the whole defence.
Finally, the court rejected McHugh’s motion to stop the defendants from pleading the Statute of Limitations before he had received their defence. It said the rules did not provide for such a pre-emptive application and that preventing the defendants from responding to the amended claim would conflict with the terms on which amendment had been allowed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals; the judgment records no further order.