Reasserting the Campion Doctrine: Ooi v Ireland & Ors [2025] IEHC 392 Clarifies that Absence of Agreed Facts Bars Preliminary Issues

Introduction

Ooi v Ireland & Ors ([2025] IEHC 392) is a decision of the High Court (Mulcahy J) delivered on 11 July 2025. The case springs from a contentious repossession of Dromin House in County Wicklow, a property whose mortgage had long since fallen into arrears. The plaintiff, Ms Yeoksee Ooi, having been evicted on foot of a warrant of execution issued by the County Registrar and executed by the Dublin City Sheriff, commenced plenary proceedings seeking (inter alia) re-entry to the property. In an early interlocutory motion she asked the Court to direct, under Order 25 r.1 and/or Order 34 r.2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (“RSC”), a trial of a preliminary issue—namely the validity of the warrant of execution. Mulcahy J refused that request.

Although the underlying dispute concerns mortgage enforcement and property rights, the ruling sets a procedural precedent: a preliminary issue will not be ordered unless there is (i) a clearly formulated question of law and (ii) an agreed or undisputed factual matrix. The judgment thus amplifies the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Campion v South Tipperary County Council [2015] IESC 79 and underscores the high bar litigants must clear before the Court will fragment a plenary action.

Summary of the Judgment

The plaintiff contended that the warrant used to evict her was invalid and sought to have that single question tried first.
The defendants argued that (a) numerous facts were disputed, (b) other threshold matters—statute-barred delay, locus standi—preceded the warrant issue, and (c) even a finding of invalidity would not finally dispose of the proceedings.
Applying Campion, Mulcahy J held:
- No discrete legal question had been adequately identified.
- The validity of the warrant could not be determined without resolving contested facts, including alleged “collusion” and the circumstances of the Sheriff’s appointment.
- Trying the issue in isolation would not save time or cost; it risked duplication and unfairness to the defendants.
Accordingly, the Court declined to direct a preliminary trial and listed the matter for case-management toward a full plenary hearing.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The judgment canvasses several authorities. Their influence is summarised below.

Campion v South Tipperary County Council [2015] IESC 79; [2015] 1 IR 716
Supreme Court guidance on when a preliminary issue is appropriate: agreed facts, discrete law, demonstrable efficiency, fairness. Mulcahy J uses its ten-point checklist as the analytical spine of his decision.
Moore v Dun Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council [2016] IESC 70; [2017] 3 IR 42
Held that a technical defect in a warrant does not automatically entitle repossession by the dispossessed party. Quoted by defendants to illustrate that even plaintiff success would not necessarily secure re-entry.
Breslin v McKenna [2008] IESC 43; [2009] 1 IR 298
Establishes that materials from criminal discovery (e.g., a book of evidence) require leave before being adduced in civil proceedings. Relied on to exclude a late affidavit until consent issues were resolved.
Ulster Bank Ireland DAC v McDonagh & Ors [2023] IECA 265
Court of Appeal finding that the property was not a “family home” under the Family Home Protection Act 1976. Background precedent undermining the plaintiff’s substantive entitlement to remain.

2. Legal Reasoning

The reasoning unfolds in four logical steps, mirroring the Campion factors.

Identification of the legal question: The plaintiff simply alleged “invalidity” without specifying whether the defect lay in (a) the Sheriff’s territorial authority, (b) the warrant’s form, or (c) procedural irregularities. Without that clarity, the Court could not isolate a genuine point of law.
Factual agreement prerequisite: The Court emphasised that all relevant facts must be undisputed. Here, the plaintiff alleged “collusion” between Promontoria and the County Registrar, disputed the sheriff’s appointment, and proffered an untested witness statement. These disputes were fatal to a preliminary issue.
Time-and-cost efficiency: Even if the warrant were invalid, further questions (remedy, standing, limitation) would survive. Conversely, if defendants prevailed, the case would end—benefiting only them. Thus the motion could increase, rather than reduce, litigation overhead.
Fairness and justice: Fragmenting the action would allow the plaintiff to “road-test” her case, forcing defendants to fight piecemeal. This asymmetry offended procedural fairness.

3. Impact of the Decision

Although strictly interlocutory, the ruling is likely to reverberate in three areas:

Civil Procedure: Litigants frequently seek tactical fragmentation (e.g., preliminary issues, modular trials). Ooi re-affirms that the Court’s discretion will be exercised sparingly, and only where both clarity of legal question and agreement on facts exist.
Mortgage Enforcement Litigation: Borrowers and occupiers sometimes challenge execution warrants on technical grounds. The judgment indicates that such challenges, if fact-heavy, will almost always require a full plenary trial rather than isolated adjudication.
Strategic Case Management: The Court signalled willingness to impose proactive timetables (the mention date of 18 July 2025) rather than allow interlocutory skirmishes to derail progress.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Warrant of Execution: An order, usually issued by a County Registrar or court officer, authorising a Sheriff or court messenger to enforce a judgment—for example, by taking possession of property.
Preliminary Issue (Order 25 RSC): An isolated question—often of law—decided ahead of the main trial. Intended to streamline litigation; permissible only when facts are undisputed and the ruling may dispose of or materially shorten the overall case.
Plenary Summons: The originating document in a fully plead (as opposed to summary) High Court action. It is followed by Statements of Claim and Defence, enabling discovery, oral evidence, and cross-examination.
Judicial Review Time-Limits: Administrative law challenges must generally be brought within three months. Defendants argued that, because the plaintiff’s challenge targets an administrative act (issuing a warrant), she was out of time.
Standing (Locus Standi): A party’s legal entitlement to bring a claim. Defendants dispute the plaintiff’s standing because the property is not legally her family home and she holds no proprietary interest.

Conclusion

Ooi v Ireland & Ors does not create brand-new doctrine but powerfully reasserts and clarifies the Supreme Court’s guidance in Campion: a preliminary issue is the exception, not the norm. Unless (1) the legal question is crisply framed, (2) relevant facts are admitted or beyond controversy, and (3) a demonstrable saving of time and cost will ensue, the Court will insist on a unitary trial. For practitioners, the message is unambiguous: tactical attempts to “slice off” contentious issues will fail where factual disputes persist. For the broader legal system, the decision furthers efficient case management by discouraging fragmentary litigation and ensuring that preliminary motions serve, rather than hinder, substantive justice.