The High Court has refused an application by Tom O’Driscoll and Seamus Dunne to pause enforcement of a €320,000 judgment, ruling that it had no jurisdiction to change the final order after it had been made.
Larry McDonald and Bernard McDonald obtained judgment against the defendants on 17 July 2012. The President of the High Court ordered the defendants to pay €320,000 together with costs. The defendants did not appeal.
The defendants later brought separate proceedings seeking damages on claims, most of which had been pleaded as counterclaims in the original case but were not determined. They argued that these claims were, in effect, cross-claims and that enforcement of the 2012 judgment should be stayed until the new proceedings were decided. They also sought to join the two sets of proceedings.
The application came before Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton alongside two motions in the separate proceedings: one seeking judgment in default of defence and another seeking to strike out those proceedings. The parties agreed that the strike-out motion would be dealt with first. On 11 February 2015, the court refused to dismiss the separate proceedings. The defendants then obtained more time to deliver their defence, leaving the stay application for determination.
The plaintiffs argued that the court was functus officio, meaning it had completed its role in the case and could not grant the requested relief. The judge reviewed statutory and procedural provisions permitting stays, as well as the court’s inherent jurisdiction. He concluded that a stay must generally be sought when judgment is given, or before the court has parted with the case. A final order can be revisited only in limited circumstances, including to correct an accidental error or in special or unusual circumstances where the order does not reflect what the court decided.
The defendants accepted they had not sought a stay when the 2012 judgment was made. The judge also noted that the President had considered the counterclaims and had not granted a stay. Finding no mistake, clerical error or special or unusual circumstances, Mr Justice Barton ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to amend the order. He refused the application. The judgment addressed the stay request; it did not determine the claims in the separate proceedings.