The Court of Appeal has rejected Thomas Kennedy’s appeal against the dismissal of proceedings concerning a farm at Killkilahara, Thurles, and upheld an order requiring him to obtain leave before bringing further proceedings about the lands.
In a judgment delivered on 13 October 2017, Ms Justice Irvine said the High Court had acted within its discretion when it dismissed Kennedy’s 2015 claim as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal also upheld an Isaac Wunder order requiring him to obtain the leave of the President of the High Court before starting proceedings concerning the lands in folio 6265F, County Tipperary.
Kennedy claimed he bought the farm from his late brother, Bartholomew Kennedy, in 1972 for £12,000, paid in two instalments, and farmed it for 29 years. He sought a declaration that he owned the lands and damages, alleging interference with his use of them and false imprisonment on five occasions. He also alleged negligence and fraud by the solicitor he said had acted for him in the purchase. These were claims made by Kennedy, not findings in this appeal.
The court said the ownership issue had already been decided against Kennedy by Mr Justice McKechnie in 2010, after an eight-day hearing, and his appeal to the Supreme Court had been dismissed. The earlier judgment found he had not established that he bought folio 6265F and concluded that the lands he purchased in 1972 were in a different folio. Ms Justice Irvine noted that the documents Kennedy wished to rely on in the current case had been examined in detail in that earlier judgment.
Kennedy argued that his new claim raised negligence and fraud issues and should proceed to trial. He also contended the High Court should have waited for the outcome of a separate appeal concerning an injunction to restrain the sale of the lands. The Court of Appeal held that the injunction appeal could not affect whether the new proceedings were an abuse of process, and that the High Court judge was entitled to hear the dismissal motion without waiting.
The judgment said the new case sought to re-litigate the same ownership issue, despite the change in defendants. It upheld the dismissal and concluded there was no basis to interfere with the leave requirement. The appeal was rejected.