An application by lawyers for Mr Gerry Hutch to bring - outside normal time limits - proceedings to set aside any judgment which may be secured by the Criminal Assets Bureau against him in an action next week was rejected in the High Court yesterday.
Mr Justice Kelly said the latest application was an attempt by Mr Hutch to secure what he had to date failed to secure, an adjournment of proceedings fixed for next Tuesday in which the bureau is seeking judgment against him for £1.9 million based on a tax assessment. On Tuesday Mr Justice Kelly refused to grant Mr Hutch, of The Paddocks, Clontarf, legal aid for that hearing.
Dr Michael Forde SC, for Mr Hutch, yesterday asked for leave to abridge time to serve a notice of motion in which he was seeking two orders. He was seeking a mandatory interlocutory order for the return of documents to Mr Hutch which were seized by the bureau, including documents related to the proposed sale of a premises.
He was also seeking to secure a stay on any judgment which may be made against Mr Hutch given he was not represented by a counsel of his choice at that hearing.
Refusing the application, Mr Justice Kelly said four days' notice was normally required for service of a notice of motion, but the court had the discretion to abridge time.
The application was grounded on an affidavit from Ms Gabrielle Wolfe, solicitor for Mr Hutch, parts of which were criticised by the judge. He said her account of the hearing in which legal aid was refused to Mr Hutch was inaccurate.
The judge said the first order sought by Mr Hutch was said to be required for an appeal against a decision of Mr Justice O'Higgins on March 25th refusing to return the deeds sought by Mr Hutch.
Mr Hutch was entitled to appeal that decision, but he could not see how the order sought would assist the appeals procedure. All Mr Hutch had to do was file a notice of appeal, but none had been filed.
He said the second order sought was quite extraordinary and without precedent. The court was being asked to stay execution of a judgment in advance of a court hearing. He could see no circumstances in which the court should facilitate an early hearing of this application.