Judgment: 2016-01-15 · Court archive

Court of Appeal dismisses bid to commit people over alleged water settlement breach

The court held that undertakings in a settlement were given between the parties, not to the court, and could not support attachment and committal on the defendant’s motion.

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Martin Byrne (Defendant)
  • Donnelly J.
What

The court held that undertakings in a settlement were given between the parties, not to the court, and could not support attachment and committal on the defendant’s motion.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 12 November 2015

    The appeal concerned an order made by Donnelly J. on 12 November 2015. The motion sought attachment and committal based on alleged breaches of undertakings in written settlement terms agreed in 2012. The Court of Appeal held that those undertakings were given by the plaintiffs to Byrne, rather than to the court, so the alleged breaches could not ground the committal orders sought on that motion.

  • 1 October 2012

    Under the settlement, the plaintiffs undertook to stop drawing water from a well on Byrne’s land within four months of 1 May 2012. They also undertook to vacate the lands where the well was located and cease extracting water by 1 October 2012. The settlement was received and filed in court and attached to its order as a schedule. The perfected order included two declarations about Byrne’s title to the land and the plaintiffs’ lack of entitlement to a right of way, and struck out the proceedings with liberty to apply.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The appeal concerned an order made by Donnelly J. on 12 November 2015. The motion sought attachment and committal based on alleged breaches of undertakings in written settlement terms agreed in 2012. The Court of Appeal held that those undertakings were given by the plaintiffs to Byrne, rather than to the court, so the alleged breaches could not ground the committal orders sought on that motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Martin Byrne’s appeal against a refusal to attach and commit people named in his motion over alleged breaches of a water scheme settlement. It did not decide whether the plaintiffs had breached the settlement’s undertakings.

The appeal concerned an order made by Donnelly J. on 12 November 2015. The motion sought attachment and committal based on alleged breaches of undertakings in written settlement terms agreed in 2012. The Court of Appeal held that those undertakings were given by the plaintiffs to Byrne, rather than to the court, so the alleged breaches could not ground the committal orders sought on that motion.

Under the settlement, the plaintiffs undertook to stop drawing water from a well on Byrne’s land within four months of 1 May 2012. They also undertook to vacate the lands where the well was located and cease extracting water by 1 October 2012. The settlement was received and filed in court and attached to its order as a schedule. The perfected order included two declarations about Byrne’s title to the land and the plaintiffs’ lack of entitlement to a right of way, and struck out the proceedings with liberty to apply.

The appeal focused on whether the settlement undertakings had thereby become undertakings to the court. The Court of Appeal said the order did not record that any undertaking had been given to the court. It also noted that the settlement did not say the undertakings were to be given to the court. Their inclusion in the filed settlement and its attachment to the order did not make them court undertakings by implication.

The judgment said that an order must be clear about what conduct could amount to a breach before attachment and possible committal for contempt could follow. It concluded that the trial judge had correctly refused the requested orders. The court said a breach of the settlement undertakings could be pursued through separate enforcement proceedings, but made no finding on whether any breach had occurred. That question was left for another occasion.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review