The High Court ruled in favour of Danske Bank in a dispute over who should receive a €106,640.36 award made to John Meagher in litigation against the Health Service Executive and Dublin City Council.
In a judgment delivered on 10 February 2015, Mr Justice Moriarty found that an attachment order made by Mr Justice Kelly in May 2013 was intended to cover the proceeds of Mr Meagher’s litigation against both public bodies. The judge said the Bank was therefore entitled to the benefit of the award, despite the wording of the earlier order being capable of some ambiguity.
The dispute arose after Mr Meagher obtained a judgment against the HSE in proceedings primarily concerning services related to asylum seeker accommodation in Dublin. The award was €106,640.36, including interest. The judgment records that Mr Meagher had assigned any entitlements he might establish to his solicitors, C.C.K. Law Firm.
Danske Bank had an unsatisfied summary judgment against Mr Meagher for €6,984,826.48, arising from a breach of contract. It argued that the May 2013 order appointed a receiver to collect both existing sums due from Dublin City Council and any judgment proceeds from Mr Meagher’s litigation, including sums awarded against the HSE. The Bank also sought to amend the order if the court considered that necessary.
Mr Meagher argued that the order covered only awards against Dublin City Council and that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend it to money due from the HSE. The HSE said it had no entitlement to the award, while claiming an indemnity from Dublin City Council. The Council said it would abide by the court’s order.
Justice Moriarty accepted the Bank’s interpretation. He concluded that Mr Justice Kelly had intended the Bank to benefit from the full proceeds of the litigation against the Council and the HSE. The judge said he did not need to amend the 2013 order because its intended effect was sufficiently clear. He also rejected Mr Meagher’s allegation of collusion against the opposing parties.
The ruling resolved the central dispute in the Bank’s favour, but the court did not set out final orders or decide costs at that stage. Justice Moriarty deferred those matters briefly to allow the parties to consider the judgment.