The Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of John Mulrooney’s proceedings against three defendants, holding that he could not re-litigate an allegation that a lease had been unlawfully altered after settling earlier proceedings in which the same allegation was raised.
The appeal concerned an order by the High Court dismissing Mr Mulrooney’s claim. He also appealed the refusal of an order for discovery, seeking access to the lease for further forensic examination. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Clarke on 9 May 2013, held that the claim was barred by the earlier settlement and affirmed the dismissal as an abuse of process. It said there was no point ordering a further examination. The court did not decide whether the lease had been altered.
The dispute arose from a 1999 lease of 16.68 acres at Garryduff, Piltown, County Kilkenny, and a milk quota of 14,924 gallons. The parties disagreed over whether the lease ran for three or five years. Edward Malone maintained it was for five years; Mr Mulrooney alleged that its terms had been changed from three years to five without his knowledge or consent.
In earlier Circuit Court proceedings, Mr Malone obtained an award against John and William Mulrooney relating to sums due in the fourth and fifth years of the lease. Their appeal was settled in November 2005 for €13,500, including costs, which was paid to Mr Malone. A third-party claim against Shee and Hawe Auctioneers, based on the alleged alteration, was also settled.
Mr Mulrooney later relied on reports from two English document experts who had not examined the original lease. The judgment records that their reports discussed possible changes but said access to the original would be needed for a definite conclusion. A Northern Ireland examiner who had examined the original concluded that he could find no evidence the lease was other than a five-year lease. The Supreme Court did not resolve those competing forensic matters.
The court said the earlier settlement covered the alteration allegation because it was already before the Circuit Court when the claims were settled. It also held that any further forensic evidence could have been sought before that settlement: the original lease was available, and the allegation had already been made. Mr Mulrooney’s claim that he had received poor legal advice did not allow him to reopen the settled issues against the continuing defendants. The court made no finding on the quality of that advice.
The appeal related only to John Shee and Company Solicitors, Shee and Hawe Limited, and Mr Malone. Mr Mulrooney’s appeal against dismissal of claims against other defendants was not before the Supreme Court.