The Court of Appeal has dismissed Finbar Tolan’s appeal against a High Court judgment in favour of Kiernan Milling, finding that the trial judge’s decision was supported by evidence and could not be overturned under the limits on appellate review.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 14 November 2016, the President said the appeal concerned whether goods had been delivered and whether Mr Tolan was liable for them. The court said an earlier High Court decision had rejected Mr Tolan’s contention that a €19,000 payment extinguished any further debt.
The later High Court proceedings examined liability in full. The appeal court said Mr Tolan had not been prevented from having the matter fully litigated. Hanna J. heard the case over a couple of days and reviewed the evidence, including testimony from a delivery driver, company representatives and Ms Kiernan.
The President said Hanna J. accepted the driver’s evidence and accepted another witness’s evidence insofar as it established that the driver had signed delivery dockets confirming receipt. The trial judge also accepted evidence from Ms Kiernan about a telephone conversation in June 2013 in which, she said, Mr Tolan accepted liability for outstanding bills. The President cautioned that it was not clear whether that acceptance covered the full amount.
Hogan J. agreed, saying the trial judge was entitled to infer that there had been an order and that the goods had been delivered, based on the balance of probabilities. The appeal court applied the principle in Hay v. O’Grady: where a trial judge’s conclusion has evidential support, an appeal court cannot interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion.
The Court of Appeal held that Hanna J. had not erred in his approach and dismissed the appeal. The ruling upheld the judgment for Kiernan Milling; it did not state the total amount of any outstanding debt.