The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Brian, Kenneth and Maurice McDonagh against an Isaac Wunder order requiring them to obtain court leave before instituting specified proceedings against Ulster Bank and other listed parties. The court said the order does not prevent the brothers from defending proceedings, whether already under way or brought later.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Charles Meenan on 19 November 2024, upheld a High Court order made by Mr Justice Garrett Quinn in January 2024. The appeal court said the McDonaghs had established no ground to disturb that decision.
The dispute arose from a €21.5 million loan made by Ulster Bank in 2007 to buy lands at Kilpedder, County Wicklow, for a proposed data centre. The project did not proceed. A 2013 compromise agreement provided for the sale of several properties, including the lands, and payment of the proceeds to the bank. The judgment records that the agreement was not honoured and that the High Court later entered judgment for €22,947,202.85. The Court of Appeal upheld findings concerning breach of the agreement and the receivers’ appointment in 2022.
Earlier findings about an alleged sale of the Kilpedder lands to Granja Limited were central to the background. The brothers had relied on a 2014 “Heads of Agreement”. In the judgment proceedings, the High Court found Granja was a front for Brian McDonagh and that the document had been created later and backdated. In separate litigation concerning CBRE’s valuation, the brothers acknowledged the agreement was a “sham”, and their appeal in that case failed.
The High Court granted the screening order after considering the history of repeated proceedings and the need to protect court resources and other parties from renewed claims on matters already determined. Its order applies to new proceedings within its stated scope. Re-entering existing proceedings requires a court application on notice, and the order leaves the brothers free to defend claims.
At the appeal hearing, the McDonaghs sought an adjournment because they had asked the High Court judge who made earlier findings to revisit them. That application was refused on 30 October 2024. The Court of Appeal also refused the adjournment and said the pending application did not provide a ground for appeal. It found the brothers’ challenge to the transfer of the loan and security had not been explained sufficiently to amount to a stateable ground.
The court’s provisional view was that the respondents should receive their costs. The McDonaghs were given 14 days from delivery of the judgment to file submissions opposing that view; the respondents could reply within 14 days thereafter.