The Court of Appeal dismissed most of Eugenie Houston’s appeal over the dismissal of her claim against solicitor Wendy Doyle, but set aside an order requiring Houston to obtain permission before bringing any further High Court proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 22 October 2020, Mr Justice Maurice Collins said the High Court had been entitled to dismiss Houston’s case as an abuse of process. It concerned costs orders and judgment mortgages that had already been challenged in related well-charging proceedings. Those costs orders had not been appealed, and the Court of Appeal had since dismissed Houston’s appeal in the well-charging case.
Houston’s claim sought, among other relief, to set aside four judgment mortgages registered against her property in Co Kildare. The appeal court said the proceedings amounted to a collateral attack on the costs orders, the mortgages and the orders in the well-charging proceedings. It found no pleaded or evidenced basis to reopen the costs orders. Houston’s suggestion that a consent costs order had been made under duress was not set out in her pleadings or affidavits.
The court also upheld the refusal to join six partners of the law firm Tully Rinckey as defendants. The costs orders had been made in Doyle’s favour personally, and the judgment mortgages were registered in her name. The court said the firm had no involvement in the dispute underlying those orders.
Houston had also appealed the High Court judge’s refusal to recuse herself, alleging actual bias. The Court of Appeal rejected that challenge, finding no material capable of supporting the allegation and no unfairness in the hearing.
However, the High Court had, on its own initiative and without hearing Houston on the proposal, barred her from instituting any further High Court proceedings without the prior leave of the President of the High Court. The Court of Appeal said a person affected by an Isaac Wunder order must have an opportunity to be heard. It also considered the restriction unusually broad. The court set it aside without substituting another order.
The appeal court warned that trying to relitigate issues decided in the well-charging proceedings could expose Houston to a future Isaac Wunder order. It affirmed the High Court’s costs orders, including €1,200 plus VAT in favour of Tully Rinckey on the joinder application. The parties were invited to make written submissions within 14 days on the costs of the appeal.