Hanrahan v The Minister for Agriculture and Food

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh
• Judgment Date: 03 November 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IECA 340
• Docket Number: [2019 478]
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Date: 03 November 2020

BETWEEN

JOHN HANRAHAN

APPELLANT

AND

MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

RESPONDENT

[2020] IECA 340

Ní Raifeartaigh J.

Murray J.

Collins J.

[2019 478]

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Adjournment – Right to a fair hearing – Mootness – Appellant seeking an adjournment of the hearing of a motion issued by the appellant – Whether the refusal to grant the appellant the adjournment sought denied him the right to a fair hearing of the issue the subject of the motion

Facts: The appellant, Mr Hanrahan, appealed to the Court of Appeal from an order of the High Court (Meenan J) dated 21st November 2019 refusing to grant an adjournment of the hearing in the Non-Jury list of a motion issued by the appellant. The motion was listed for hearing on 27th November 2020. The appellant referred to the various reasons offered in support of that application at the time: (i) his ill-health; (ii) the fact that he had only recently received some documentation from the respondent, the Minister for Agriculture and Food; and (iii) the fact that he wished to join the Minister “personally” to the proceedings. He submitted that the refusal to grant him the adjournment sought denied him the right to a fair hearing of the issue the subject of the motion. He submitted that the judge was in error having regard to the fact that no prejudice was to be suffered by the respondent. He submitted that the judge failed to proportionately and properly apply the relevant law to an adjournment application. The appellant also submitted that he was not treated fairly and was not properly listened to, and that this was part of a pattern which had manifested itself throughout proceedings against the Minister at various times.

Held by Ní Raifeartaigh J that the appeal in respect of the order made on 21st November 2019 was entirely moot. She noted that the decision was a case management decision, which was overtaken by events on 27th November 2019, the date of hearing, upon which date the appellant made several further adjournment applications which were considered by two successive High Court judges (Meenan J and Simons J) all of which were unsuccessful. She noted that the dismissal of the motion itself was not the subject of appeal. Further, she was of the view that the appeal should fail on its merits even if it were not moot. She did not think that the appellant had reached the necessary threshold for setting aside the discretionary decision of the High Court.

Ní Raifeartaigh J held that the appeal would be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered on the 3 ^rd day of November 2020

1 This is an appeal from an order of the High Court (Meenan J.) dated 21 ^st November 2019 refusing to grant an adjournment of the hearing in the Non-Jury list of a motion issued by the appellant. The motion was listed for hearing on 27 ^th November 2020.

Background

2 To understand the motion, it is necessary to refer to the substantive proceedings which issued in 2006 and were the subject of final decision (by the Supreme Court) in 2018. In 2006, the appellant brought a claim for damages against the respondent (‘the Minister’) arising out of the unlawful destruction of cattle owned by him. In 2010, the High Court (McMahon J.) found in favour of the appellant and awarded him damages in the amount of €304,320.00. He made certain orders as to costs and granted a stay on the award of damages but ordered that the Minister should forthwith pay the appellant a sum of €180,000.00 on account of the damages and undertake to pay interest on the balance of any damages over and above that sum which may be payable.

3 There was both an appeal and a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court. On 16 ^th January 2017, the Supreme Court directed the part payment of a further sum of €54,000 to the appellant on the same terms.

4 On 18 ^th October 2017, the Supreme Court gave its decision (with the sole judgment being delivered by O'Donnell J.) and varied the damages as awarded by the High Court in the amount of €299,320.00 (a net difference of €5000.00 from the High Court award). It adjourned the matter to deal with costs and calculation of interest.

5 This was not the only litigation in which the appellant had been involved during that period. He also brought unsuccessful judicial review proceedings, and the Revenue Commissioners successfully brought proceedings against him. Various garnishee orders were made in respect of the damages awarded in the present proceedings. The Minister took the view that it would be appropriate to set-off monies owed to the appellant as a result of the present proceedings against monies owed by the appellant in other proceedings.

6 On 12 ^th January 2018, - being a date before the Supreme Court had made its final order on interest and costs in the present proceedings - the Minister issued a motion in the High Court seeking to set off debt owed by the appellant to him in relation to costs of other proceedings. This was grounded upon an affidavit of Derek Elliott which set out details of the other litigation and explained what the Minister wished to do by way of set-off. It is not necessary for present purposes to set out the Minister's position on these matters in any detail here.

7 On 16 ^th February 2018, the Supreme Court dealt with the costs and calculation of the interest in the present proceedings and ordered that the interest to be paid was €64,104.57, and the total sum to be recovered by the appellant €363,424.57 (being the damages plus interest), but that payments already made should be deducted. The appellant was also awarded 75% of the costs of the appeal and no order was made for the cross-appeal.

8 On 19 ^th February 2018, the Minister withdrew the motion in the High Court concerning the set-off and on that date the High Court (Coffey J.) struck the motion out with no order.

9 On 22 ^nd February 2018, the appellant sought an order “compelling the defendant to abide by the order of the Supreme Court”. On 23 ^rd February 2018, Coffey J. refused the order.

The motion the subject of the adjournment application which is the subject of this appeal

10 It appears that the appellant was and is keen to have the issue of set-off clarified by the High Court. On 24 ^th July 2019, the appellant filed a motion seeking “an order and a declaration as to whether the Defendant has a right to set off the costs owed to him as against other sums owed by the Defendant to the plaintiff”. A return date of 31 ^st July 2019 was given. On that date, Coffey J. set out a timetable to be followed for matters such as the filing of affidavits.

11 Mr. Peter Clifford swore a replying affidavit on 21 ^st August 2019. The appellant swore an affidavit on 12 ^th September 2019. I do not propose to deal with the contents of those affidavits because the appeal is not concerned with the merits of the motion but rather the refusal of an application for adjournment of the hearing of the motion.

The first hearing date: 16 ^th October 2019

12 On 7 ^th October 2019, the matter came before Noonan J. for mention. At this stage, the appellant was pressing for an early hearing date and accordingly, the date of 16 ^th October 2019 was fixed for hearing.

The second hearing date: 23 ^rd October 2019

13 The appellant applied to adjourn the hearing date of 16 ^th October 2019, without notice to the respondent. A provisional hearing was fixed for 23 ^rd October subject to the Minister's availability. This proved not to be suitable for the...