Corrigan v Redmond and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms Justice Nessa Cahill
• Judgment Date: 18 July 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 411
• Docket Number: Record Number 2023/0006024

Michael Corrigan

Plaintiff

and

Michael Redmond and Edward Corrigan

Defendants

[2025] IEHC 411

Record Number 2023/0006024

THE HIGH COURT

Possession of property – Damages – Remittal – Defendants seeking to have the proceedings remitted to the Circuit Court – Whether the proceedings could have been commenced in the Circuit Court

Facts: Mr Redmond (the Deceased), who passed away on 29 December 2021, by his last will and testament of 22 June 2015 left his estate to be divided between his nieces and nephews. The estate included a dwelling house known as “The Bungalow” and located at Iskabeg, the Ballagh, Enniscorthy, County Wexford, and contained in folio WX13998 (the Property), which belonged to the Deceased. The defendants, Mr M Redmond and Mr E Corrigan (the Executors), were executors of the estate of the Deceased. They issued proceedings against the plaintiff, Mr M Corrigan, and his daughter, Ms Corrigan, in the Circuit Court on 17 November 2022 seeking to secure possession of the Property (the Circuit Court Proceedings). The plaintiff and Ms Corrigan delivered a defence and counterclaim in the Circuit Court Proceedings on 7 August 2023. They sought various orders, including an order for specific performance of an alleged agreement with the Deceased that the Property would be left to the plaintiff; an order that the plaintiff was legally and beneficially entitled to the Property; damages; and payment of the specific sum of €60,000 by way of quantum meruit. Proceedings were issued by the plaintiff on 2 December 2023. The reliefs sought were directed to securing the plaintiff’s ownership of the Property. Alternative orders were sought, including damages and payment of the specific sum of €286,000 by way of quantum meruit damages. The Executors sought to have the proceedings remitted to the South Eastern Circuit to be prosecuted before a judge in the Circuit Court in County Wexford, pursuant to Order 49, Rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The primary reason for the application was that the orders sought by the plaintiff mirrored almost exactly the orders sought by way of counterclaim in the Circuit Court Proceedings.

Held by the High Court (Cahill J) that it was stated in the Circuit Court counterclaim that “the parties have agreed in writing to unlimited jurisdiction in respect of the First Defendant’s counterclaim”. Cahill J noted that the Executors had confirmed their consent to the Circuit Court having unlimited monetary jurisdiction in the Circuit Court Proceedings. Cahill J held that the remittal of these proceedings would also result in the unlimited monetary jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Cahill J held that the difference in the quantification of the plaintiff’s claim in the High Court and the Circuit Court was not therefore a material matter in the circumstances of this case as the Circuit Court could deal with an unlimited monetary claim.

Cahill J held that, for those reasons, and in the interests of avoiding unnecessary and undesirable multiplicity of proceedings seeking substantially the same orders and dealing with the same claims and the same property (being situate in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to which remittal was sought), she was satisfied that these proceedings could have been commenced (if at all) in the Circuit Court and that it was appropriate to grant the order sought remitting the proceedings to that jurisdiction.

Proceedings remitted.

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Nessa Cahill delivered electronically on 18 July 2025

1 This judgment addresses the Defendants' motion seeking to remit the proceedings to the South Eastern Circuit to be prosecuted before a judge in the Circuit Court in County Wexford.

Overview

2 The Defendants (“ the Executors”) are executors of the estate of Mr Michael Redmond, deceased. By this motion, they seek to have these proceedings remitted to the Circuit Court pursuant to Order 49, Rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (“ the Rules”). The primary reason for the application is that the orders sought by the Plaintiff in these proceedings mirror almost exactly the orders sought by him (and his daughter) by way of counterclaim in Circuit Court proceedings issued against them by the Executors in 2022. The only noticeable difference is that an alternative claim for damages is made in both proceedings, with a larger sum of money claimed by in these proceedings (€286,000) by contrast with the damages claimed in the counterclaim made in the Circuit Court (€60,000).

3 It is stated in the Circuit Court counterclaim that “ the parties have agreed in writing to unlimited jurisdiction in respect of the First Defendant's counterclaim”. The Executors have confirmed their consent to the Circuit Court having unlimited monetary jurisdiction in the Circuit Court Proceedings. The remittal of these proceedings would also result in the unlimited monetary jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. The difference in the quantification of the Plaintiff's claim in this Court and the Circuit Court is not therefore a material matter in the circumstances of this case as the Circuit Court can deal with an unlimited monetary claim.

4 For these reasons, and in the interests of avoiding unnecessary and undesirable multiplicity of proceedings seeking substantially the same orders and dealing with the same claims and the same property (being situate in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to which remittal is sought), I am satisfied that these proceedings could have been commenced (if at all) in the Circuit Court and that it is appropriate to grant the order sought remitting these proceedings to that jurisdiction.

5 This judgement sets out the reasons for this decision and addresses certain other questions that arose during the hearing.

Non-Attendance by the Plaintiff

6 The Plaintiff did not attend the hearing of this motion on 11 July 2025. His daughter, Ms Shinead Corrigan was present in Court and sought to make submissions on his behalf. However, Ms Corrigan is neither a legal practitioner nor a party to these proceedings. She indicated that the Plaintiff was in the Four Courts and was aware that the motion was listed for hearing but would not attend. Her position was that he had been directed to attend court for the hearing of the motion and was (apparently) attending a different court to the court in which the motion was being heard. She asserted a constitutional right to speak on his behalf; sought to rely on a power of attorney; and suggested that the Plaintiff wanted time to obtain legal representation.

7 Ms Corrigan indicated that the directions that had been made to fix the hearing date for this motion were under appeal and a handwritten notice of appeal dated 10 July 2025 was furnished to me.

8 Counsel for the Executors opened to me the judgment of Humphreys J in Walsh v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IEHC 323 which refers to the established rule that, absent exceptional circumstances (or statutory provision), only professional advocates can represent another person in court.

9 It is significant that the Plaintiff was not present in Court and there was no attempted justification or explanation for his absence (other than the bizarre statement that he was directed to attend court, but not specifically the court in which the motion was being heard). It must be very seriously doubted how a person can assert to be a McKenzie friend at the hearing of a civil matter of this nature, if the party they are purporting to assist is not present. Moreover, Ms Corrigan did not identify any exceptional circumstances to justify her attempts to advocate for the Plaintiff, insisting instead on a constitutional or legal right to do so (which simply does not exist). Insofar as she referenced the need for legal representation, this motion was assigned a hearing date on 27 June 2025 and was then listed in Court again on 3 July 2025, when the Plaintiff was specifically directed to attend. There was no basis for adjourning it and I saw no justification whatsoever for the motion not to proceed.

10 Having considered the facts, I was satisfied that the Plaintiff was properly on notice of the hearing of the motion but decided not to attend the court in which the motion was listed for hearing. No “ exceptional circumstances” were identified and there was no basis to even consider giving permission to Ms Corrigan to address the court, within the meaning of the High Court Practice Direction on McKenzie Friends (CP HC72). The appeal that has been filed has no bearing on this question.

11 For these reasons, I made a ruling at the commencement of the hearing of the motion that Ms Corrigan had no right of audience and no right to make submissions to the Court.

12 Two affidavits were filed on behalf of the Plaintiff in reply to this motion and I proceeded to deal with the motion in his absence.

Background

13 These proceedings concern the estate of Mr Michael Redmond, who passed away on 29 December 2021 (“the Deceased”). By his last will and testament of 22 June 2015, the Deceased left his estate to be divided between his nieces and nephews. There are 38 beneficiaries ranging in age from 50 to 79 years of age.

14 The estate includes a dwelling house known as “ The Bungalow” and located at Iskabeg, the Ballagh, Enniscorthy, County Wexford, and contained in folio WX13998 (“ the Property”), which belonged to the Deceased.

15 The Executors issued proceedings against the Plaintiff and his daughter, Shinead Corrigan, in the Circuit Court on 17 November 2022 seeking to secure possession of the Property (“ the Circuit Court Proceedings”). The Plaintiff and Ms Corrigan delivered a defence and counterclaim in the Circuit Court Proceedings on 7 August 2023. By that counterclaim, they sought various orders, including an order for specific performance of an alleged agreement with the Deceased that the Property would be left...