The High Court has refused Paul and Gerard Dormer’s application for an interlocutory injunction restraining Allied Irish Banks Plc’s receivers from dealing with their assets, and ordered that an interim injunction granted in December 2014 be vacated.
The brothers sought to set aside or vacate a March 2014 judgment under which the bank obtained judgment against them for €17,663,876, plus accrued interest and costs. They argued that the judgment followed a settlement agreement that the bank had not properly implemented.
Under the January 2014 agreement, three named bank representatives were to recommend a proposal for credit facilities to the bank’s Area Credit Committee. The agreement did not guarantee that the committee would approve the proposal. The committee declined to offer further credit, and the earlier court entered judgment in accordance with the agreement.
The Dormers said documents obtained through a data protection request showed that what was presented to the committee was not a genuine recommendation, and that it was framed so rejection was inevitable. They maintained that this amounted to misrepresentation, but expressly did not plead fraud.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern said the March judgment was final, had been perfected and had not been appealed. He found that the issue raised by the Dormers had already been canvassed before the judge who entered judgment, and that the present proceedings sought to challenge that decision. In the absence of an allegation of fraud, the brothers were precluded from seeking to set aside or vacate the judgment and were estopped from advancing the same case again.
The judge concluded that they had failed to establish a fair issue to be tried, an essential requirement for the injunction application. He also said damages would be an adequate remedy if an injunction were refused and the Dormers ultimately succeeded. That was a subsidiary observation, as the court had already found there was no fair issue to be tried. He questioned whether the brothers could meet their undertaking to pay damages if required, given the judgment against them.
The court refused the interlocutory injunction application and directed that the interim injunction granted on 3 December 2014 be vacated. The ruling concerned the injunction application; it did not set aside the March 2014 judgment.