The High Court has dismissed Martin Tucker’s action seeking possession of a house in Clontarf, finding that Havbell Designated Activity Company’s entitlement to possession had already been finally determined and that Tucker’s claims were bound to fail.
In a judgment delivered on 18 January 2022, Mr Justice Allen also ordered that two lis pendens registered against the property be vacated, once Havbell produces the certificates needed to identify the relevant register entries. He restrained Tucker from issuing further proceedings in any court relating to the property without leave from the President of the High Court or a judge nominated by the President. The order does not bar proceedings outright; it makes them subject to that leave requirement.
Tucker’s action, begun in November 2020, challenged Havbell’s entitlement under a mortgage assignment and sought possession for himself, among other reliefs. The court said the Circuit Court had made a possession order in 2018, and Tucker’s attempts to appeal or extend the time to appeal had failed. The High Court held that he could not use the current action to reopen that decision or raise arguments about the assignment that could have been made earlier.
Tucker also relied on a settlement agreement under which Havbell agreed to accept €310,000 in full settlement, subject to conditions. The payment deadline was extended several times, ultimately to 30 June 2020. The court found the payment was not made by the agreed deadline and that the agreement required compliance with other conditions, including providing evidence of the source of funds. It rejected Tucker’s contention that Havbell had withdrawn its agreement, and concluded that any claim based on the settlement terms was bound to fail.
The judgment records Tucker’s allegations concerning pension policy proceeds, the mortgage transfer and the conduct of earlier proceedings, as well as Havbell’s responses. Allen J said the pension policy allegations did not undermine the possession order and were not part of the settlement terms. He also described Tucker’s allegations of perjury as baseless.
The court dismissed the action as res judicata and as frivolous and vexatious and bound to fail. The dismissal disposed of other motions in the action, including Tucker’s applications for interim relief and discovery. Havbell was awarded the costs of its dismissal motion and specified proceedings and motions; the matter was listed for 1 February 2022 to address any costs issue.