The Court of Appeal has dismissed Paddy McKeown and Adelaide McCarthy’s attempt to reopen its earlier decision in a dispute with Ned Murphy, affirming a High Court order for interlocutory relief and awarding Murphy the costs of the High Court hearing and appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 13 July 2020, the court said the appellants’ submissions after its March ruling did not meet the exceptional test for revisiting a final judgment. That jurisdiction requires a fundamental issue of constitutional justice capable of affecting the result; it cannot be used to reargue the merits or act as another appeal.
The appellants raised objections to the court’s treatment of information about the naming of Allied Irish Banks in documents appointing Murphy as receiver. They argued, among other things, that a submission reporting the Bank’s instructions was hearsay and outside the scope of submissions the court had invited. They also complained that points in their own submissions had not been addressed, and sought to raise issues concerning redemption, funds they said Murphy had taken, and his authority over properties.
The court rejected the procedural objections. It said the directions given at the November 2019 hearing allowed the parties to address the effect of an anticipated judgment in related Summary Summons proceedings and, if Murphy chose, whether the omission of a comma from the Bank’s name in relevant documents was deliberate or a mistake. The appellants had not objected when they received his submission. The court also said hearsay evidence was admissible in the interlocutory appeal.
It said a judgment need not address every argument individually, and that its earlier decision had categorised and addressed all 12 grounds of appeal. The remaining complaints sought to revisit the merits of that decision, which the court said it could not do after delivering final judgment.
The court clarified that Murphy could not bring proceedings solely to obtain an interlocutory injunction and then leave them inactive. The appellants could apply to court if they considered there had been a default in pleading; any failure to comply with directions after such an application could result in dismissal of the proceedings and the injunction being vacated. The court said that was for the appellants to pursue in the appropriate forum.
The court stressed that the interlocutory appeal had not determined the Bank’s correct name or why it appeared as it did in the documents. Those questions remained for trial; at this stage, the issue was only whether Murphy had an arguable case. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order perfected on 16 November 2017 affirmed.