Carlin & Anor v A&L Goodbody Northern Ireland LLP & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants executed an interest only mortgage in 2008 with Company A, securing a first legal charge over their dwelling house. The loan amount was £192,099. As of 4 September 2023, the outstanding balance was £242,058 with arrears of £132,249 due to non-repayment since September 2011.

The parties have been engaged in litigation spanning approximately 12 years. Key recent milestones include:

• On 26 November 2019, a judge dismissed the appellants' application to strike out Company A's possession order application and dismissed their application to vary a discovery order.
• On 8 June 2020, an order for possession of the dwelling house was made in favour of Company A.

The appellants did not appeal those orders. Subsequently, on 16 June 2023, Deputy Judge Simpson made several orders including dismissing the appellants' application to set aside earlier judgments, striking out the appellants' writ action, refusing a stay of possession enforcement, and dismissing various applications made by the appellants. The appellants now appeal each of these orders.

Earlier, on 15 November 2023, this court ordered the appellants to provide security for the respondents' appeal costs, which was complied with by the appellants via crowd funding.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the Notice of Appeal, which contained numerous unsubstantiated assertions lacking credible evidence. The court found no evidence supporting allegations of unfairness, unprofessional conduct, fraud, criminal conduct, discrimination, abusive conduct by officers of the court, abuse of process, or apparent bias by judges or masters involved in the case history.

The court further found no discernible error of law in the judgment under appeal, which was adequately reasoned and addressed all material issues. The equitable doctrine of laches was not applicable to vitiate the judgment. The court also refused the appellant's application for recusal of the judicial panel due to lack of particulars and legal basis.

Attempts by the appellants to adjourn the appeal were dismissed due to lack of merit and absence of supporting medical evidence for health claims. The appellants represented themselves, and despite articulate oral and written submissions, the court concluded the appeal was hopeless and refused further extensions for additional submissions.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is DISMISSED.

The appeal is dismissed and the first instance judgment and orders are affirmed in all respects. The court also upheld the order for costs against the appellants as made at first instance. No new precedent was established, and the decision directly enforces the prior possession and procedural orders against the appellants.