Background
Michael Corrigan appealed after the High Court declined to hear his daughter, Shinead Corrigan, on his behalf during proceedings concerning the remittal of an estate-related action to the Circuit Court. Ms Corrigan relied on a power of attorney, but the High Court ruled that it did not entitle her to represent her father in court. The remittal motion was later heard and granted by the High Court.
When Corrigan’s appeal came before the Court of Appeal in October 2025, Ms Corrigan again sought to appear for him under the power of attorney. The Court of Appeal held that she had no right of audience and struck out the appeal for want of an appearance by the appellant. In July 2026, more than seven months after the order had been perfected, Ms Corrigan applied under Practice Direction CA 14 to vary or rescind it.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal refused the application. It held that it was filed far outside the 28-day period prescribed by CA 14, without an application to extend time and without any explanation capable of justifying an extension. That was independently sufficient to dispose of the application.
The Court also rejected the substantive premise of the application. A power of attorney does not give an unqualified person a right to represent a litigant in court. A natural person may act personally or through a qualified, registered legal practitioner; a court may exceptionally grant audience to another person, but a litigant cannot confer that right by private appointment. No exceptional circumstances had been advanced. Reopening the appeal would also have been pointless because the underlying listing decision had been overtaken by the High Court’s subsequent determination of the remittal motion.
Key Takeaways
- An application under Court of Appeal Practice Direction CA 14 must be made within 28 days unless time is extended on a proper basis.
- A power of attorney does not itself confer a right of audience on a non-lawyer.
- CA 14 is not a mechanism for re-arguing matters already decided by the Court.
Why It Matters
The ruling confirms the limits of representation by non-lawyers in Irish civil courts. Even where a litigant has authorised another person to act for them in other respects, court representation requires either self-representation, a qualified legal practitioner, or an exceptional grant of audience by the court.
It also underscores that applications to vary or rescind final appellate orders must be brought promptly and supported by a cogent explanation if made out of time.