Admitting Fresh Evidence on Circuit Court Appeals and Limits on Strike-Out Motions: Doyle v Leahy [2025] IEHC 266

Introduction

In Doyle v Leahy (Approved) [2025] IEHC 266, Michael Doyle (“the Plaintiff”) and Michael Leahy (“the Defendant”) contested rights over an industrial yard and six acres of adjoining land at Shamrock Commercial Park, County Kilkenny. The High Court (Bradley J.) dealt with two interlocutory applications arising on the defendant’s appeal from a Circuit Court Order of 6 December 2021: (1) the plaintiff’s motion under Order 61, rule 8 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 to adduce fresh evidence; and (2) the defendant’s motion to strike out the plaintiff’s proceedings on the basis of Henderson v Henderson or, alternatively, laches. The underlying dispute concerned the defendant’s claim to adverse possession and earlier ejectment and injunction orders obtained by the plaintiff.

Summary of the Judgment

Bradley J. granted the plaintiff leave to adduce new evidence from three witnesses—Reggie Booth, Oliver Carey and Mark Hilliard—because their evidence existed at the original hearing, could not with reasonable diligence have been produced then, would likely influence the outcome, and was credible. The judge applied the three-part test from Murphy v Minister for Defence [1991] 2 IR 161 (Finlay C.J.). He refused the defendant’s strike-out application, finding that the rule in Henderson v Henderson and the doctrine of laches did not bar the plaintiff’s claim, which concerned fresh facts and a new injunction application arising from the defendant’s ongoing occupation and removal of materials.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Order 61, rule 8 RSC 1986 – Governs admission of fresh evidence on appeals from the Circuit Court.
Murphy v Minister for Defence [1991] 2 IR 161 – Establishes three criteria for fresh evidence: existence at trial, diligence, probable influence, and apparent credibility.
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 – The “cause of action estoppel” rule preventing re-litigation of matters which ought to have been raised earlier.
Laches – Equitable doctrine barring stale claims where the claimant’s inordinate delay has prejudiced the defendant.

Legal Reasoning

On the fresh evidence application, Bradley J. adopted the Finlay C.J. formulation: evidence must (1) have existed at the trial and not be obtainable with reasonable diligence; (2) probably affect the result; and (3) be apparently credible. The three proposed affiants satisfied these criteria, having worked on or managed the premises from 1996 to 1998 and possessing direct, contemporaneous knowledge of the yard’s use, boundary access and clearance works. Their testimony addressed precisely the surprise claim of adverse possession over a six-acre tract first articulated only when the defendant was cross-examined in December 2021.

Regarding strike-out, the judge held that neither Henderson v Henderson nor laches applied. The injunction and possession disputes before the Circuit Court were distinct from earlier ejectment and Land Registry applications. The plaintiff’s current claim did not seek to relitigate earlier issues but to enforce a fresh injunction against the defendant’s continued occupation and material storage. The delay arguments were properly addressed on the merits and were not suited to summary strike-out.

Impact

This decision clarifies how Irish courts will approach fresh evidence motions on Circuit Court appeals. Litigants must demonstrate diligence and the potential importance of new testimony. The ruling also limits the scope of Henderson v Henderson and laches in interlocutory challenges: a party may pursue distinct relief even where related disputes have been adjudicated previously. Future adverse possession and injunction cases will likely cite this judgment where parties seek to introduce late but material evidence or resist strike-out of novel claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Possession: When a person occupies land without the owner’s permission, openly and continuously, for a statutory period, they may acquire title against the owner’s rights.
Order 61, rule 8 RSC 1986: The procedural rule allowing appellate courts to admit “fresh evidence” not before the lower court, subject to a three-part test.
Henderson v Henderson Rule: A party cannot bring new litigation on issues that could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings between the same parties.
Doctrine of Laches: An equitable defence where a claimant’s unreasonable delay in asserting a right causes prejudice to the respondent, potentially barring the claim.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in Doyle v Leahy [2025] IEHC 266 underscores the flexibility of appeals practice in Ireland: fresh, credible evidence that could not previously have been presented may be admitted if it bears on the outcome. Simultaneously, it narrows strike‐out relief under Henderson v Henderson and laches to cases where the new claim truly overlaps a concluded matter or where delay has caused irremediable prejudice. Practitioners should carefully frame new evidence applications under O.61 r.8 and deploy strike‐out arguments only when earlier adjudication or unfair delay plainly mandates summary disposal.