The High Court ordered Mary Walsh to disclose financial information and produce records to David Walsh as he seeks to enforce a judgment in his favour. It also restrained her from reducing her assets below €929,965.66, subject to limited exceptions, until further order or satisfaction of the judgment and costs.
The order followed a February 6, 2017 motion by David Walsh. The court had ruled for him in the substantive action on February 2 and granted a stay conditional on €929,965.66 being lodged in court. In this later hearing, Justice Richard Humphreys considered whether further post-judgment protection and disclosure were justified.
The judge said the defendant had neither paid the plaintiff nor lodged money in court since the substantive order. He found a risk and intention to dissipate or hide assets, citing, among other matters, a false Revenue affidavit, inaccurate and evasive evidence, incomplete disclosure and the fact that much of a €3,389,790.66 lotto win remained unaccounted for. The judgment said the defendant’s stated assets totalled €673,465.89, leaving €2,716,324.77 unaccounted for, while her bank accounts held €6,991.61. These were findings and figures recorded by the judge; the ruling concerned preservation and enforcement, not a new determination of the underlying claim.
The court held that a post-judgment injunction could in principle cover estimated costs as well as the judgment amount, to protect the successful party’s effective remedy. It declined to allow payments from the assets for the defendant’s living expenses, business losses or legal proceedings, reasoning that she should not use the plaintiff’s money for those purposes. It did, however, permit her to spend her old age pension on living expenses and any stamp duty payable on an appeal.
The court ordered disclosure and discovery in aid of execution under paragraphs 2 and 3 of the motion. The restraint applies until further order or satisfaction of the judgment and costs. The defendant may apply to vary the figures if evidence establishes that her house is uncharged and provides a written valuation. The earlier stay remains in place if €929,965.66 is lodged.
The judgment’s postscript records later steps: on February 20 the matter was adjourned to March 6, when the court made a conditional garnishee order concerning a financial policy in the defendant’s name. Whether funds would need to be lodged in court pending appeal, and the plaintiff’s application for an absolute garnishee order, were left for further consideration listed for March 20.