Background
The High Court directed the convening of a shareholder meeting to consider a scheme of arrangement involving Permanent TSB Group Holdings plc and BAWAG PSK. Piotr Skoczylas and the other appellants appealed, seeking to prevent the meeting from proceeding without a prior determination that the shareholders should be divided into majority and minority classes. The Court of Appeal expedited the appeal so it could be resolved before the scheduled meeting on 30 July 2026.
Mr. Skoczylas sought permission shortly before the hearing to participate remotely, relying ultimately on a medical report concerning his need to assist his mother around the time of a medical procedure. The Court refused remote participation because he had not adequately explained why he could not attend or arrange alternative care. He did not appear on 8 July 2026, and his appeal was struck out. He later applied under Court of Appeal Practice Direction CA14 to vary or rescind that decision, alleging a denial of justice and constitutional rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Court refused the application because it did not satisfy the threshold in paragraph A.3 of Practice Direction CA14 for a hearing on the merits. The ordinary rule was that Court business was conducted in person, and a party seeking an exception had to justify it. The medical material did not establish that Mr. Skoczylas was unable to attend: it did not adequately explain the care his mother required, the availability of alternative support, or how his international travel would endanger her well-being.
The Court held that striking out the appeal for non-appearance accorded with ordinary adversarial procedure and involved neither legal error nor denial of fair procedures. It rejected the suggested alternatives of granting remote access, briefly adjourning the appeal, or deciding it solely on the papers. Those courses would undermine the Court’s control of its list or unfairly constrain the company’s opportunity to be heard. The Court also expressed doubt about the validity of the remotely sworn grounding affidavit because the evidence did not show that it was impracticable for Mr. Skoczylas to attend before an appropriate officer wherever he was located.
Key Takeaways
- Remote participation in an Irish Court of Appeal hearing is an exception that must be supported by a sufficiently explained and evidenced justification.
- An appellant who fails to attend and prosecute an appeal on its fixed hearing date may have the appeal struck out without a separate warning of that consequence.
- Practice Direction CA14 requires an applicant seeking to revisit a final judgment or order to identify grounds warranting a merits hearing; unsupported assertions of constitutional unfairness are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores the Court of Appeal’s authority to control its hearing arrangements and list, including in urgent corporate proceedings. A refusal of remote participation cannot be circumvented by non-appearance, nor can a party compel an adjournment or determination on written materials by declining to attend.
It also highlights the need for precise evidence when personal or medical circumstances are invoked to justify remote participation or remote swearing of an affidavit. General statements about caregiving obligations will not necessarily establish that physical attendance was impracticable.