F v W. & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The proceedings concern a property in Kilkenny ("the Property") purchased by the Plaintiff from a receiver appointed by mortgage banks ("the Banks"). The Defendant, who was not the mortgagor, was unlawfully occupying the Property. The Plaintiff initiated proceedings and sought injunctive relief on 3 November 2023 to require the Defendant to yield possession. Following affidavits and a hearing, the Court granted the injunction on 6 August 2024 ("the Injunction Judgment").

It was established that the Banks appointed a receiver over the Property in 2015 and the Plaintiff purchased it on 17 August 2023, knowing it was unlawfully occupied. The Defendant refused to engage with the receiver and demanded payment on the basis of long-term occupation. The Plaintiff proved title without challenge, while the Defendant failed to establish a lawful basis for occupation, relying on an untenable adverse possession claim contradicted by prior possession proceedings and a July 2016 Court order requiring the Defendant to vacate.

The Defendant was given opportunities to clarify his adverse possession claim but failed to substantiate it adequately. The Court found the Defendant’s claim undermined by earlier litigation in 2016, including an order made by Mr Justice Binchy requiring possession, which the Defendant mistakenly believed was set aside. The Defendant’s affidavits and applications did not address fundamental issues or provide credible evidence supporting his adverse possession claim.

The Injunction Judgment balanced justice and proportionality in favour of the Plaintiff, noting the unlawful occupation, obstruction of receivers, absence of rent proposals, and doubts about damages as an adequate remedy. The Defendant was ordered to vacate by 31 October 2024, with undertakings to comply peacefully, subject to any granted stay or extension.

Subsequent hearings involved various motions by the Defendant, many adjourned at his request. The Defendant later disclosed a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia and sought adjournments and extensions based on this. The Court considered medical evidence and submissions relating to alleged discrimination and lack of accommodations by the Courts Service, but ultimately found no prejudice to the Defendant’s ability to participate fairly in the proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant’s recent diagnosis of ADHD and dyslexia justifies a stay or adjournment of the proceedings or extension of time to vacate the Property.
2. Whether the Defendant’s defence, particularly the adverse possession claim, discloses a reasonable defence or is bound to fail, warranting striking out.
3. Whether the Plaintiff’s application to strike out the Defendant’s defence should be granted under Order 19 rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant argued that his recent diagnosis of ADHD and dyslexia affected his ability to fairly participate in the proceedings, and that the Courts Service failed to provide reasonable accommodations as required by the Disability Act 2005 and the European Convention on Human Rights.
• He contended that the outcome of the injunction hearing could have been different if the Court had been aware of his disability and the difficulties he faced as a litigant in person.
• The Defendant claimed discrimination and degrading treatment due to the lack of facilities or processes to assist persons with cognitive disabilities in the courts.
• He sought an extension of time to vacate the Property and an adjournment of hearings, proposing motions be dealt with one at a time due to his cognitive challenges.
• He maintained his adverse possession claim, asserting long-term occupation and disputing the Plaintiff’s title and the validity of the Banks’ repossession proceedings.
• The Defendant denied misleading the Court, attributing any errors or contradictions in his affidavits to his undiagnosed disability.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff submitted that ADHD is common and had not previously disrupted legal proceedings to justify adjournments or extensions.
• The Plaintiff challenged the relevance and weight of the Defendant’s medical evidence, noting the report was not prepared with knowledge of the legal proceedings and lacked specific findings on impairment relevant to litigation.
• He argued the Defendant’s conduct and filings demonstrated no inhibition in defending the proceedings despite his condition.
• The Plaintiff opposed extensions to vacate the Property, citing arrangements made to take possession and the Defendant’s status as an unlawful trespasser.
• Regarding the strike out application, the Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s claims were frivolous, vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable defence, relying on established case law and procedural rules.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully considered the Defendant’s diagnosis of ADHD and dyslexia and the associated medical evidence but found that the diagnosis did not justify adjournment or extension of time. The Court noted that the Defendant had been given considerable latitude throughout the proceedings, including multiple adjournments and opportunities to present his case. The medical report was found to be of limited evidential value due to its generic nature, lack of specific recommendations, absence of full disclosure to the psychologists, and timing.

The Court observed that the Defendant was able to articulate his position effectively both in writing and orally, citing numerous authorities and legal principles. The Defendant’s conduct and filings demonstrated capability rather than impairment affecting his substantive defence.

Regarding the adverse possession claim, the Court found it fundamentally flawed and contradicted by objective evidence, including prior possession proceedings and a 2016 Court order requiring the Defendant to vacate. The Defendant’s misunderstanding of these orders was not attributable to his medical condition but rather to evidential deficiencies in his case.

The Court emphasized the duty to balance fairness to the unrepresented Defendant with the rights of the Plaintiff and the need for efficient judicial process. It rejected the Defendant’s allegations of discrimination by the Courts Service, noting the absence of steps taken under the Disability Act 2005 and that any such claims should be pursued separately.

On the Plaintiff’s application to strike out the Defendant’s defence, the Court found that the defence disclosed no reasonable defence, was bound to fail, and was an abuse of process. The Defendant’s pleadings contained numerous unsustainable factual and legal assertions, many contradicted by established facts and prior orders. The Court declined to strike out the counterclaim at this stage, as it required factual determination at trial.

The Court also refused the Defendant leave to amend his defence, finding the proposed amendments to be late, repetitive, and legally unsustainable.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the Defendant’s application for a stay or adjournment of the proceedings based on his recent diagnosis of ADHD and dyslexia, concluding that no prejudice or disability justified such relief.

The Court GRANTED a short extension of time until 21 November 2024 for the Defendant to vacate the Property, balancing the Defendant’s opportunity to pursue an appeal with the Plaintiff’s interests.

The Court GRANTED (IN PART) the Plaintiff’s application to strike out the Defendant’s defence, finding it frivolous, vexatious, bound to fail, and disclosing no reasonable defence. The counterclaim was not struck out.

The decision directly affects the parties by advancing the possession claim toward resolution and limiting the Defendant’s procedural delays. The Court did not establish new legal precedent but reaffirmed existing principles regarding self-represented litigants, disability accommodations, and strike out applications.