The High Court struck out proceedings brought by John McMahon and Sheena Sharma over lands at Killycard and Bree, Castleblayney, and barred McMahon from bringing further proceedings against the named defendants without the court’s leave.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice MacMenamin on 15 June 2007, concerned motions by the third to sixth named defendants. The judge had ruled on a similar application by the first and second defendants on 2 March. The second plaintiff, Sharma, did not attend the hearing and had previously indicated she would take no further part in the case.
The judgment said the December 2006 plenary summons was the fourth proceeding brought by or on behalf of McMahon concerning the lands. The dispute followed the 2002 death of Peter Shevlin, whose intestate beneficiaries were Mary and Peter Comer. McMahon alleged that he and Shevlin had an agreement or trust under which Shevlin would leave him the farm in return for his care of it. The court said McMahon had established no claim to the lands.
Earlier proceedings resulted in a settlement on appeal in February 2006. Under its terms, McMahon was to hand over vacant possession by 17 March and receive €80,000, inclusive of costs. He did not vacate by the agreed date. The judgment records that the Comers later obtained orders requiring him to leave, and that he was committed to prison for contempt in July 2006 before being released by court order. The cheque was later returned by McMahon’s solicitor, the court said.
The current case sought 46 forms of relief, including a declaration that McMahon owned the lands. He alleged he had been pressured into the settlement and made further allegations against the defendants. The judge said those claims were unsupported by evidence and that the new proceedings sought to reopen issues already determined or settled. He also found that the six features identified in the earlier case of *Riordan v Ireland (No. 5)* for an “Isaac Wunder” order were present, including persistent litigation, rolling earlier issues into new actions, and unpaid costs from proceedings before the High Court Master.
The court granted the defendants’ applications, striking out the proceedings as frivolous or vexatious. It also prohibited McMahon from instituting proceedings of any nature against the defendants named in this case without leave of the High Court. The judgment stated that such restrictions should be used sparingly, but found they were necessary in this case.