The High Court has refused Tippo International Limited’s application to dismiss Michael Leahy’s proceedings over a factory fire and machinery, and declined to bar him from bringing further proceedings against the company or its solicitors without permission.
In a judgment delivered on 16 February 2024, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled that Tippo had not shown that Leahy’s current claim was bound to fail. He also found that the issues raised did not justify an Isaac Wunder order, a restriction on commencing further litigation.
Leahy, a litigant in person, issued the proceedings in October 2021. He alleges that the parties’ business relationship and the fire at Tippo’s factory in Kilkeary, Nenagh, in October 2016 caused him financial losses. His claim includes allegations that the factory lacked adequate fire protection for machinery he relied on, that Tippo failed to insure his losses, and that machinery suffered unrepaired wear and tear. These remain allegations, not findings by the court.
Tippo argued that the claim overlapped with earlier proceedings and was covered by a mediated settlement reached in September 2018. Under that agreement, the parties acknowledged the end of their 2008 business agreement, Tippo agreed to pay Leahy €550,000, and Leahy agreed to discontinue a 2014 case over an unpaid machinery invoice. Tippo said the settlement covered all claims between them and had been honoured.
The judge compared the current claim with the 2014 proceedings, which concerned an alleged €242,000 debt under an invoice for machinery. He was not satisfied that Leahy’s present claim should have been brought in that earlier case. The settlement’s scope and the parties’ competing accounts raised factual and legal disputes that, he said, must be addressed at a full trial. The ruling did not decide whether Leahy’s allegations are true or whether he is entitled to damages.
Tippo also relied on the parties’ wider litigation history to seek a restriction on future cases. The judge considered that history but said the settlement’s application to the current claim remained for trial, and that Leahy’s right of access to the courts also had to be weighed. He refused the requested restriction.
The court made no further order at that stage, subject to the parties’ views, and listed the matter for mention on 21 February 2024.