The High Court has rejected an application by Brian, Kenneth and Maurice McDonagh to set aside a 2020 judgment in Ulster Bank’s dispute with them over the Kilpedder Site. Mr Justice Twomey said the court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking to overturn a judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The judgment, delivered on 30 October 2024, concerns an application in the original case, rather than new proceedings. The McDonaghs filed a motion on 25 March 2024 and it was heard on 16 July. They relied on “liberty to apply”, a provision the judge said is intended to clarify the extent or application of final orders, not to set aside the judgment itself.
The 2020 judgment followed a five-week trial. The Court of Appeal affirmed it in 2022, and the Supreme Court later refused to hear a further appeal. In this latest application, the McDonaghs argued that the judgment should be set aside because material not before the trial court—including additional documents and unredacted parts of documents—might have led to a different result.
They initially alleged that lawyers for Ulster Bank had suppressed new evidence by fraud. The judgment records that, after receiving legal advice, Maurice McDonagh swore an affidavit withdrawing that allegation, stating that they did not have sufficient evidence to establish fraud.
Mr Justice Twomey said the High Court could not set aside a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal, effectively reversing that appellate decision. He rejected the application as unprecedented and held that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The ruling did not determine any appeal from this decision. The judgment said the case would be provisionally listed a week later to address final orders and costs, unless the parties advised the registrar that the listing was unnecessary because they had agreed outstanding matters.
The judgment also discussed security for costs, arguing that individuals who bring hopeless or vexatious proceedings should, in some cases, be required to provide security. That discussion was not an order requiring the McDonaghs to provide security in this case. The court left final orders and costs for a later mention.