Mooney v Keys & Ors [2017] NICA 24 (26 April 2017)

Mooney v Keys & Ors [2017] NICA 24 (26 April 2017)

The application for extension of time was refused because the appellant and her advisors were in persistent and unjustified default, the delay was flagrant and unexplained, the grounds for appeal could have been raised much earlier, and there was no substantive reason to override the need for legal certainty and promptness. The alleged bias and other grounds lacked merit or general significance, and the rules of court must be observed.

Citation
[2017] NICA 24
Parties
Petitioner/appellant: Dr Winifred Mooney; Respondent: Derek Keys; Respondent: Dermot Faller; Respondent: Maiden City Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
26 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Judicial Bias, Share Registration, Director Duties, Finality in Litigation
Civil Procedure Company Law Extension of Time to Appeal Judicial Bias Share Registration Director Duties Finality in Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Winifred Mooney

Petitioner/appellant

Derek Keys

Respondent

Dermot Faller

Respondent

Maiden City Developments Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the 2012 High Court judgment
  2. 2 Whether alleged judicial bias or other grounds justify the delay in appealing
  3. 3 Whether the original judgment was tainted by bias or legal error

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the appellant and her advisors were in persistent and unjustified default, the delay was flagrant and unexplained, the grounds for appeal could have been raised much earlier, and there was no substantive reason to override the need for legal certainty and promptness. The alleged bias and other grounds lacked merit or general significance, and the rules of court must be observed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • No extension of time to appeal granted