The Court of Appeal has dismissed Philip Morrissey’s appeal against High Court orders striking out motions and proceedings concerning a €24.97 million consent judgment, a quarry dispute and directions sought about company receivers.
In a judgment delivered on 30 April 2025, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore, with whom Mr Justice Noonan and Mr Justice Pilkington agreed, held that a settlement agreement signed by Morrissey and the other parties remained binding. The High Court had relied on the agreement to strike out the relevant claims and motions. The appeal court found no basis to overturn those orders.
The dispute arose from lending by Allied Irish Banks to Dan Morrissey (IRL) Limited, which defaulted. Morrissey had guaranteed the company’s debts. He consented to judgment for €24.97 million in 2015. In 2020, he signed a settlement under which he acknowledged liability for sums due under the guarantee and judgment and waived claims relating to the quarry, receivership and associated proceedings. The agreement also limited the lenders’ recourse to specified security.
The three matters before the High Court included Morrissey’s 2021 application to set aside or appeal the consent judgment; his claims alleging, among other things, wrongful quarry excavation and trespass; and proceedings seeking directions about the receivers’ functions. Those quarry allegations were described in the judgment as claims made in the pleadings, not findings that the alleged conduct occurred.
Morrissey argued on appeal that the settlement should not prevent his claims, raising issues including legal aid, the handling of his motions, alleged undisclosed payments and settlements, and the adequacy of his legal representation. The Court of Appeal said the legal-aid issue had not been raised before the High Court and was not a ground in the appeal notice. It also found that he had been given an opportunity to address whether the settlement disposed of the disputes.
The court agreed with the High Court that the settlement’s waivers covered the relevant claims. It said complaints about later-discovered information, legal advice or alleged breaches of the agreement did not provide a basis to set it aside. The court also rejected the argument that Morrissey’s motions had been unfairly left unheard: once the judge found the settlement binding, a full hearing of claims he had agreed not to pursue was unnecessary.
The appeal was dismissed. The judgment did not determine the appeal costs; a hearing on costs was scheduled for 8 May 2025.