Hall & Anor v Stepstone Mortgage Funding Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

By letter of offer dated 22nd August 2007, the respondent agreed to advance €300,000 to the applicants, secured by a mortgage on their family home located at Abbeylands, Duleek, Co. Meath. The funds were advanced, but the applicants defaulted on payments from 2009 onwards. On 20th March 2014, the respondent demanded full repayment of the outstanding amount. Subsequently, on 14th May 2014, the respondent issued a civil bill seeking possession of the applicants' family home.

The possession application was heard on 16th July 2015 before Her Honour Judge Reynolds in the Circuit Court. The first named applicant represented both himself and the second named applicant, a practice permitted by the High Court judge given the circumstances and absence of objection from the respondent. The hearing was disrupted by two contempt of court matters, including the arrest of an individual assisting the applicants, which led to further interruptions and emotional distress for the applicants.

Following refusal of an adjournment and an order for possession with a nine-month stay, the applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review to quash the possession order. The High Court had previously addressed a related procedural issue concerning the correct naming of the respondent in an earlier judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave should be granted to apply for judicial review to quash the Circuit Court possession order.
2. Whether the refusal of an adjournment during the possession hearing, in light of the arrest and removal of the applicants' assistant, constituted a breach of fair procedures.
3. Whether the removal of paperwork belonging to the applicants' assistant during his arrest violated the applicants' entitlement to fair procedures.
4. Whether interruptions during the hearing, including contempt proceedings against third parties, affected the fairness of the possession hearing.
5. Whether alleged misconduct by law enforcement during the hearing, including intimidation and physical interference with the applicant, warranted relief.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• Questions posed by the applicants during the hearing were not adequately answered, including issues about acceptance of tender and accuracy of account numbers.
• The possession hearing was unfairly interrupted by contempt proceedings against third parties, which were alleged to have been heard simultaneously.
• The refusal of an adjournment following the arrest of the applicants' assistant was unfair, given the applicants' emotional distress and impaired ability to defend the case.
• Paperwork intended to be relied upon in the defence was removed during the arrest of the assistant, constituting a breach of fair procedures.
• Allegations of intimidation and physical interference by law enforcement officers during the hearing.
• Interventions from the bench were excessive and prejudicial to the applicants' right to a fair hearing.

Respondent's Arguments

• Questions raised by the applicants were either answered or irrelevant to judicial review grounds.
• The contempt proceedings interrupted but did not coincide simultaneously with the possession hearing; the hearing was briefly adjourned to deal with those matters.
• The refusal of adjournment did not breach fair procedures, and interruptions inherent in contempt proceedings are not grounds to set aside the order.
• The nature and content of the removed paperwork are unclear and would not have affected the outcome given the applicants’ defence was minimal.
• Allegations of intimidation by law enforcement were not properly pleaded and thus do not warrant leave.
• The applicants’ initial pleadings contained incorrect and scandalous allegations undermining their credibility.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the unusual circumstances surrounding the possession hearing, including the arrest of the applicants' assistant for alleged contempt and the subsequent interruptions. It acknowledged the emotional distress suffered by the first named applicant and the potential impairment of his ability to defend the case. The court found it arguable that the refusal of an adjournment under these circumstances could constitute a breach of fair procedures.

Regarding the removal of paperwork during the assistant’s arrest, the court accepted that the applicants had a legitimate complaint about losing access to materials intended to support their defence, which also raised fair procedure concerns. Although the applicants failed to immediately raise this issue during the hearing, the court inferred this may have been due to distress.

The court rejected other grounds advanced by the applicants, including complaints about questions not being answered, simultaneous hearing of contempt proceedings, and alleged Garda misconduct, either because they were misconceived, irrelevant to judicial review, or not properly pleaded.

The court emphasized the principle that lay litigants are entitled to considerable latitude in pleadings and that courts should assist them, provided no unfair prejudice to the other party arises. It noted that while the applicants’ initial pleadings contained scandalous and confusing material, the core grievance regarding procedural fairness was consistent and arguable.

Consequently, the court concluded that leave to apply for judicial review should be granted but limited to the grounds concerning fair procedures related to the refusal of adjournment and removal of paperwork.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to apply for judicial review limited to specific grounds alleging breach of fair procedures during the Circuit Court possession hearing, namely:

• The refusal of an adjournment application after the arrest of the applicants' assistant, which impaired the applicant’s capacity to defend the case and was contrary to fair procedures.
• The removal of written materials the applicant intended to rely on, resulting from the assistant’s arrest, violating the applicants’ entitlement to fair procedures.

Leave was refused for all other grounds raised in the original application. The applicants were permitted to file an amended statement of grounds within three weeks and serve the respondent accordingly. The possession order of the Circuit Court was stayed pending the final determination of the judicial review proceedings. Costs were reserved.

The decision does not set a new precedent but confirms the importance of fair procedural safeguards in possession hearings, particularly when unexpected interruptions and arrests affect a litigant’s ability to present their case. It also underscores the courts’ duty to afford procedural latitude to lay litigants while balancing fairness to all parties involved.