The High Court has refused Eithne O’Connor’s application to challenge an order recording a settlement in a dispute with Brendan Paes over a property in Ballincollig, County Cork.
In a judgment delivered on 9 April 2024, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley allowed a preliminary objection made for Mr Paes and refused Ms O’Connor’s application. He said the Circuit Court proceedings had been settled by agreement and had not proceeded to a hearing. The High Court therefore found there could be no rehearing of the action through the purported appeal. The judge said the wider questions about the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction in such circumstances should await a case in which they were fully explored.
The underlying Equity Civil Bill concerned a property at 58 Glendower Court, Ballincollig. Mr Paes had sought its sale to realise his share, or alternatively an order requiring Ms O’Connor to transfer her interest to him. Background claims about the parties’ contributions to the property and mortgage were described in the judgment as allegations; the High Court did not decide those underlying issues in this application.
The parties reached a settlement on 29 November 2022, which the Circuit Court made an order. It required Ms O’Connor to pay Mr Paes €120,000 by 1 March 2023 in return for his transferring his interest in the property. If there was a default, the property was to be sold and the proceeds divided 60% to Ms O’Connor and 40% to Mr Paes. The order also provided for a named solicitor to handle conveyancing, an auctioneer to be appointed, the County Registrar to sign in default of agreement on 10 days’ notice, and liberty to apply.
Ms O’Connor later sought changes to the default arrangements, including who would handle a sale and where sale proceeds would be paid. She also alleged that she had agreed to the settlement under pressure and duress and wanted the order set aside so negotiations could resume. These were her contentions, not findings by the High Court.
The judgment records that the settlement terms were read out in the Circuit Court and discussed with Ms O’Connor, who was representing herself. She confirmed she understood the agreement and had chosen not to obtain independent legal advice. The judge noted that she had raised concerns about the default arrangements on the evening of the settlement.
Mr Justice Bradley said the settlement’s inclusion in a court order did not turn the application into a rehearing or permit the parties to relitigate the settled proceedings. He noted that the order’s “liberty to apply” provision remained available to the parties to seek clarification of the settlement’s terms, but did not allow them to restart the case. The High Court did not determine how the parties would give effect to the settlement. The matter was listed for mention on 26 April 2024 to address ancillary or consequential matters.