This report details a profound disconnect between the oral ruling of the Dublin Circuit Court and the physical delivery of the formal written order to the Plaintiff. Despite immediate and continuous follow-ups by the Plaintiff, a significant administrative delay systematically exhausted the statutory timelines required to pursue standard legal remedies

The Findings

1. The Immediate Inquiry

The Request for the Record: Immediately following the rulings on 29 January 2026, the Plaintiff addressed Judge O’Connor directly in open court to ascertain when the formal written Court orders would be issued.The Judicial Response: The Judge stated that the order would be sent to the Plaintiff when it was ready.
The Indefinite Timeline: When pressed by the Plaintiff for a specific time-frame, the Judge reiterated that the documentation would be sent when ready.
2. The Administrative Timeline and the Withheld Record

• February 2026 (The Phone Inquiries): The Plaintiff contacted the Court office via telephone to request the status of the written order. Administrative staff informed the Plaintiff that the document would be sent when ready. When pressed by the Plaintiff regarding the intention to appeal, the court officer said, ‘You do not need the court order to appeal, because you were present in court”.
• March 2026 (The Written Requests): The Plaintiff sent a formal mail seeking the court order. This follow-up email received no response from the Court office
• May 2026 (The Forced Release): The Plaintiff sent a final escalation electronic email seeking the order, copying all named defendants and the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA). Following this multi-party notification, the Court office finally sent the court order document in May 2026.

3. The Structural Chronology vs. The Statutory Deadlines

The face of the released document reveals a profound disconnect between its internal legal finalisation and its physical release to the LayLitigant party:

January 2026: The actual oral hearing takes place before Judge O’Connor.
February 2026: The official text printed on the order explicitly records that the document was formally “settled” by the Court.
May 2026: The Plaintiff receives the physical document for the first time.

4. The Substantive Wording of the Order:

The substantive wording of the court order is a word-for-word copy, taken directly from the contradicted, sworn affidavit of Solicitor Garrett Cormican, acting on behalf of the Defendant

The order bears the formal heading:

Dublin Circuit Court, County of the City of Dublin, Before Judge O’Connor, 29 January 2026. The substantive text states textually:

“The Court ordered that the case be struck out on the basis that it discloses no cause of action. It is bound to fail, it is frivolous, it is vexatious, and an abuse of process and falls foul of Henderson -v- Henderson.”

The order further dictates the financial penalty:

“That the defendant do recover from the plaintiff the costs of this motion and application to be taxed in default of agreement”

5. The Strategic Impact on Rights of Appeal

The Expired Appeal Window: In Irish civil procedure, the standard strict window to lodge an appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court is 28 days.

6. The Expired Judicial Review Window:

The strict standard timeline to apply for leave to seek Judicial Review against an administrative or procedural action is typically three months from the date the grounds arose.
The Consequence of the Delay:

By withholding the physical text of the settled order from February until May 2026, the administrative handling effectively caused the statutory clocks to run out, systematically blocking the standard avenues of immediate legal recourse.

Conclusion:
The Plaintiff asserts that the Court Registrar and Combined Manager deliberately withheld the settled order to force the statutory clocks to run out, thereby systematically blocking her immediate avenues of legal recourse and attempting an administrative cover-up