The Court of Appeal has refused Paul Smithwick’s application to reconsider its judgment in a lease dispute, finding that his arguments did not meet the high threshold for reopening a decision and did not establish unfair procedure or a denial of constitutional justice.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Máire Whelan on 16 July 2019, concerned the court’s draft judgment of 20 March 2019. That judgment had allowed an appeal by Friends First Managed Pension Funds Limited and reversed a High Court determination. The reconsideration application was made before the consequential order had been finalised.
Smithwick argued that the appeal judgment contained material errors of fact and law and failed to address central points in his case. Among his submissions were that A.T. Uniforms Limited and Alias Tom Limited should be treated as synonymous, that rent arrangements and the conduct of parties supported his position, and that the evidence supported a surrender of the lease. He also alleged bias and argued that any further consideration should be by a differently constituted panel. The ruling records that he filed no affidavit in support of his application.
The court corrected factual errors in the draft under the slip rule and made amendments for clarity. It said those corrections did not materially affect the case’s outcome. Whelan J. explained that the court retained control of a judgment until the order giving effect to it was perfected, but that its exceptional power to revisit a judgment required strong reasons and a substantive issue of constitutional justice.
The court concluded that Smithwick was, in large measure, seeking to reopen and reargue matters going to the merits of the appeal. It rejected his contention that the appeal had been decided on grounds not canvassed by him, explaining that the court could consider the issues raised by the appeal and weigh both sides’ arguments without recounting every submission. It also found no reasonable basis for the bias allegation and no material error warranting reconsideration.
The application to reconsider the 20 March judgment was refused. The ruling did not reopen the underlying appeal or alter its outcome; the court said the judgment would be circulated in final form.