O'Neill and Finnegan v Drumgoan Developments: Court of Appeal refuses stay on costs orders

The Court of Appeal has delivered a forthright judgement refusing the appellants' application for a stay on costs orders in O'Neill and Finnegan v Drumgoan Developments Limited, Noel Martin Snr. and Darren Martin [2025] IECA 207. O'Moore J., with whom Costello P. and Collins J. agreed, found the application fundamentally flawed both on grounds of arguability and on the balance of justice.

The appellants sought a stay following the Court of Appeal's dismissal of their appeals against High Court orders on 28th July 2025. That earlier judgement upheld findings that the second appellant, Mr Martin Snr., had committed flagrant breaches of court orders and undertakings. Notably, the only sanctions actually imposed were costs orders, yet no evidence was presented regarding progress towards adjudication or execution of these awards.

The court's analysis

O'Moore J. identified two striking aspects of the application. First, the appellants had consistently acquiesced to procedures they now sought to challenge, with their High Court counsel having "handled a series of difficult situations skilfully and responsibly." The court emphasised that it was not open to the appellants to retrospectively complain about processes their counsel had either endorsed or declined to oppose.

Second, the court observed that given the likely promptness of Supreme Court determination, and the probable length of the costs adjudication process, the need for a stay was "difficult to understand." The appellants' assertion that they would be "severely prejudiced" by potential execution was described as "somewhat overstated," particularly given the complete absence of evidence suggesting imminent enforcement.

Failure to establish grounds

The appellants advanced a two-part test: demonstrating stateable grounds for appeal and showing that the balance of justice favoured a stay. The court found both limbs unsatisfied.

The written submissions notably failed to address the critical factual findings about consent and acquiescence that permeated the original judgement. Where factual engagement was attempted, propositions were either "so vague as to be meaningless" or "simply misleading."

Particularly damaging was the appellants' selective quotation regarding service of the interim order on Mr Martin Snr. The written submissions ignored a crucial concession made during the appeal hearing, where counsel confirmed that Mr Martin Snr. had been notified of the order via WhatsApp. The court found no satisfactory explanation for this omission.

Regarding Drumgoan and Darren Martin's grounds, the submissions failed entirely to engage with the Court of Appeal's analysis on corporate veil piercing, making it "difficult to see why it would be upset."

Practical implications

O'Moore J. carefully noted that his merits assessment was based solely on the materials presented in the stay application. Different submissions might be advanced to the Supreme Court, potentially yielding different outcomes. However, this caveat did not prevent the court from concluding that the appellants had "failed completely" in their application.

The judgement underscores the importance of comprehensive and accurate submissions when seeking interlocutory relief. Partial quotations, unexplained concessions, and failure to engage with adverse findings will not satisfy the threshold for a stay, particularly where the mischief to be prevented—here, costs adjudication and enforcement—is neither imminent nor evidenced.

The costs of the stay application were awarded to the respondents.