The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Leahy’s claim against Tippo International Limited, ruling that a 2018 settlement covered the claims he brought over machinery damaged in a fire. It also ordered that Leahy may not issue further proceedings against Tippo or its solicitors without leave of the President of the High Court.
The appeal, heard on 9 July 2024, challenged a High Court decision refusing to dismiss Leahy’s 2021 action at an early stage and refusing to impose a restriction on further proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and made the orders at the hearing; Mr Justice Allen delivered the court’s reasons on 24 September 2024. Justices Costello and Binchy agreed.
Leahy’s action alleged that Tippo had failed to reinstate machinery and a production line after a fire on 26 October 2016, causing loss of earnings and opportunities. Tippo argued that the claims were settled in an agreement signed on 4 September 2018, under which it agreed to pay Leahy €550,000 in full and final settlement of all claims between them, including claims concerning machinery. The agreement also recorded that their business relationship had ended.
The Court of Appeal said the 2021 claim was distinct from Leahy’s 2014 action, which sought €242,000 for machinery said to have been sold to Tippo. It rejected Tippo’s reliance on the rule in Henderson v Henderson, finding that the case did not turn on claims that should have been brought in earlier litigation. Instead, the decisive issue was the settlement. The court concluded that Leahy’s machinery claims were covered by it and that his action was bound to fail.
Leahy had also argued that Tippo breached the settlement by paying €49,796 of an instalment into court rather than directly to him. That payment followed a Circuit Court order. His separate 2020 action against Tippo and its solicitors over the payment was dismissed, and attempts to challenge that dismissal were unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal held that the issue had already been determined and could not support the 2021 action.
The court made the further-proceedings order because it considered Tippo’s concern about further litigation justified, citing Leahy’s previous proceedings and his stated intention to issue another summons. The restriction requires leave; the judgment does not bar proceedings for which leave is obtained.
The court’s provisional view was that Tippo should receive its costs of the appeal and High Court application. It allowed Leahy 14 days from electronic delivery of the judgment to make written submissions on costs, with 14 days for Tippo to reply. The judgment does not state a final costs order.