The Court of Appeal has dismissed Christian Morris’s appeal against a High Court order striking out his motion concerning undertakings he gave in 2013 to two Dublin hotels and their director.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Máire Whelan on 22 March 2019, concerned a motion Morris issued in December 2015 in proceedings brought by Marine Hotel (Sutton) Limited, Grand Hotel, Malahide Limited and Aloysius Ryan. The High Court struck out Morris’s motion on 1 March 2017, with no order, after he told the judge he agreed to that course. The Court of Appeal said he disclosed no basis to appeal a consent order and dismissed the appeal.
The hotel companies had sought interlocutory injunctions in 2013 to restrain Morris from trespassing at the Marine Hotel in Sutton and the Grand Hotel in Malahide, and from contacting, threatening, harassing or filming hotel staff. Morris, who lived in the locality of the Marine Hotel, offered undertakings in an affidavit to stay off both properties and not communicate with the hotels, their directors or employees. The High Court accepted those undertakings on 13 November 2013 and adjourned the proceedings generally, with liberty for either side to re-enter on 48 hours’ notice.
The Court of Appeal noted that the undertakings had no time limit and that the respondents had not alleged any breach. It said the proceedings remained in being so the High Court could enforce the undertakings if a future issue arose. Morris had not sought to vary or amend them. The judgment said he could apply to the High Court for a specific variation.
In his 2015 motion, Morris sought a declaration that he had complied with the undertakings, an order striking out the original proceedings as frivolous or an abuse of process, and an order requiring the respondents to obtain prior leave before bringing fresh proceedings against him. At the 2017 hearing, Morris agreed to the striking out of his motion and said he would also agree to striking out the proceedings. The judge said the plaintiffs did not want the proceedings struck out and that, while the undertakings were complied with, they would not trouble Morris further. Morris replied, “Thank you judge.”
The Court of Appeal held that a declaration of compliance was not appropriate because the respondents had raised no dispute about compliance. It also found no factual basis for Morris’s claims that the original proceedings were abusive, or for his request to restrict future proceedings. It dismissed the appeal.