Get your facts straight: Ooi v Ireland and Others confirms the appropriate test for determining whether to direct a preliminary hearing
In a judgment delivered by Mulcahy J on 11 July 2025 in the case of Ooi v Ireland and Ors[1], the High Court applied the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Campion v South Tipperary County Council[2] concerning the suitability of trying an issue by preliminary hearing.
Background to the Case
The case concerns the repossession of a mortgaged property known as Dromin House in Delgany, County Wicklow. The Court was asked to consider the Plaintiff’s application challenging the validity of a warrant of execution, which she sought to be tried by preliminary hearing. The Plaintiff being the partner of the then legal owner of the property.
The requirements for trial by preliminary hearing as established in Campion can be summarised as follows:
- There must be no dispute as to material facts;
- A discrete question of law must be identifiable and separable from the factual matrix;
- The greater the impact of the issue on the case, the stronger the argument for a preliminary hearing;
- The process must likely result in a saving of time and costs, and the order must be consistent with the overall justice of the case and fair procedures.
In submissions, the Plaintiff asserted that the matter to be tried was a question of law which could be determined in isolation. This argument was strongly refuted by the Defendants, who contended that the validity of the warrant could only be determined on consideration of the facts of the case, which were unquestionably in dispute, and that even if the preliminary issue was determined in favour of the Plaintiff, that would not be the end of the matter and further court time would be required.
In dismissing the Plaintiff’s application, Mulcahy J stated that this was an issue for which trial by preliminary hearing would be “wholly inappropriate”. Crucially, he determined that a consideration of the legal question at hand could not be achieved in the absence of agreement between the parties regarding the factual matrix of the case, which he stated was an “absolute prerequisite for a trial of a preliminary issue”. While citing the dicta of McKechnie J in Campion, he concluded that granting the Plaintiff’s application in this case would not “be consistent with the overall justice of the case, including of course fair procedures for all parties”.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of factual clarity and agreement before seeking the trial of an issue by way of preliminary hearing.
The judgment can be read in full here.
For further information please contact Jerry Burke (Partner) or your usual AMOSS contact.
[1] [2025] IEHC 392
[2] [2015] IESC 79
