Ulster Bank and Sean Murphy
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] NICh 30 |
| Date | 02 February 2018 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation: [2018] NICh 30
Ref:
HOR10254
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
02/02/2018
(subject to editorial corrections)*
2013/55939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
CHANCERY DIVISION
________
BETWEEN:
ULSTER BANK
Plaintiff/Respondent
-and-
SEAN MURPHY
Defendant/Appellant
________
HORNER J
Introduction
[1] I had originally intended to give an ex tempore judgment. However, as this
matter has been beset with delay, I thought it better if I provide a reserved judgment
at this stage given that it will almost certainly be appealed.
[2] Sean Murphy, a farmer and engineer, who I shall refer to as the appellant, is
unrepresented. However he has just recently requested that his appeal(s) be
adjourned to allow him to be legally represented. Essentially he seeks to appeal the
decision of Master Hardstaff made on 8 March 2016 whereby he granted possession
of Folios AR17985, Folio 9283 and Folio 9285 Co Armagh to the Ulster Bank (“the
bank”). It claimed to hold the land certificates in respect of those folios by way of
equitable deposit.
[3] On 8 March 2016 Master Hardstaff’s order included a requirement that the
lands comprised in the folios I have referred to above should be sold out of court by
private treaty or public auction as the bank might be advised. It also required all
necessary parties to join in executing the deed or deeds of transfer of conveyance to
the purchaser or purchasers of the said lands. The money arising from such sale was
to be applied:
(i) First, in payment of the costs and expenses of the sale.
2
(ii) Secondly, in payment of the amounts due to encumbrancers (in their
proper priority of more than one); and
(iii) The balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant.
[4] The order also provided that the plaintiff was entitled to its costs of this
application when taxed in the same priority as its encumbrance and that the plaintiff
should serve a copy of this order upon the defendant by ordinary first class post.
[5] The hearing of this appeal has taken up a disproportionate amount of court
time, of my time and most importantly of the time of the staff who administer the
Chancery Office. The Office has been bombarded with e-mails, affidavits, unsworn
affidavits and other documents from the appellant. Many of the documents
submitted are in direct contravention of the directions of the court. There are other
cases deserving of a hearing which will have been delayed because of the time spent
dealing with this appeal. The court and office staff have been the subject of
unreasonable demands by the appellant in respect of provision of assistance. All this
is against a background of an appellant who, as I have stated, ignores directions of
the court, who fails to turn up or on other occasion turns up late. As King LJ said in
Agarwala v Agarwala (2016) EWCA Civ 1252 at para [72]:
“Whilst every judge is sympathetic to the challenges
faced by litigants in person, justice simply cannot be
done through a torrent of informal, unfocussed
emails, often sent directly to the judge and not to the
other parties. Neither the judge nor the court staff
can, or should, be expected to field communications
of this type. In my view judges must be entitled, as
part of their general case management powers, to put
in place, where they feel it to be appropriate, strict
directions regulating communications with the court
and litigants should understand that failure to
comply with such directions will mean that
communications that they choose to send,
notwithstanding those directions, will be neither
responded to nor acted upon.”
[6] I attach a chronology setting out the progress of this appeal which
demonstrates the appellant’s approach to this litigation and the appellant’s refusal to
comply with directions. I also attach the medical certificates, notes and reports
relied upon by the appellant which in almost all cases fail to give a diagnosis, a
prognosis, an explanation as to why the particular medical condition prevents the
appellant from attending either the courthouse in Newry or Belfast or indeed any
explanation as to why that condition renders the appellant unable to give evidence.
(Those medical notes should not be disclosed except with the leave of this court).
To continue reading
Request your trial