The Court of Appeal dismissed Philip Ward’s appeal against the High Court’s rejection of his application for an interlocutory injunction, finding that the arguments advanced did not meet the threshold of a fair or serious question to be tried.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 13 January 2022, Mr Justice Haughton agreed with a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Noonan and added reasons. Justices Whelan and Noonan concurred with Haughton’s judgment.
Ward argued that two issues should proceed to trial. The first concerned clause 24 of a Trading Agreement, which referred to South African law and “non-exclusive jurisdiction”. Haughton said that wording did not exclude the Irish courts. He also said the Trading Agreement had been superseded by a later Settlement Agreement, in which Ward submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Irish courts.
The judgment quoted clause 7 of the Settlement Agreement, which said it constituted the entire agreement between the parties concerning the actions and superseded previous agreements and understandings relating to its subject matter. Haughton said the court was entitled to assume that this clause had been explained to Ward by Ms Skinnader.
Ward’s second argument alleged misrepresentation concerning the Trading Agreement and its jurisdiction clause. Haughton said there was no evidence of misrepresentation. The judgment said Ward had signed the Trading Agreement on behalf of the company, that the agreement had been included as an exhibit in an affidavit in the Summary Summons proceedings, and that Ward had received independent legal advice before entering the Settlement Agreement.
Haughton said the arguments had been correctly rejected in the High Court and did not approach the threshold for an interlocutory injunction. He described the appeal as frivolous and vexatious and said it should not have been pursued. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The supplied judgment does not state any further order.