The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by six Superwood companies to re-enter an appeal that the court dismissed in 2004, ruling that no appeal remained pending for it to consider.
In a judgment delivered on 21 February 2014, Mr Justice Fennelly said the companies’ motion sought to revive the appeal, admit new evidence and address an alleged misunderstanding in the High Court judgment. The appeal had been dismissed by a final Supreme Court order on 15 March 2004 after Superwood failed to provide security for costs. The court said that order left no appeal before it and that the motion could not be maintained.
The dispute followed a 1987 fire at premises owned by Superwood in Bray, County Wicklow. Superwood claimed more than IR£2 million in consequential losses under insurance policies. Insurers repudiated liability, relying on a policy condition and alleging that the claim had been so exaggerated it could not have been made honestly.
After a lengthy High Court trial, the claim was dismissed in 1991 on a finding of fraud. The Supreme Court allowed Superwood’s appeal in 1995 and sent the case back for a retrial, holding that the insurers could not rely on the policy condition that had provided the basis for the fraud finding.
At the retrial, the High Court found the first three insurers liable for about IR£150,000 plus interest. It also made a Mareva injunction freezing Superwood’s assets up to IR£5 million. Superwood appealed, but the Supreme Court ordered security for costs of €1,593,102.56. When the companies could not provide it, the appeal was dismissed in March 2004.
The 2014 judgment said the court’s power under the rules to admit further evidence applied upon an appeal, and therefore did not arise when no appeal was pending. The court also said the alleged misunderstanding about mitigation could be considered only when hearing an appeal. It dismissed the application on those grounds.
Fennelly J noted that a final Supreme Court decision could be set aside only in very special and unusual circumstances. An allegation that a judgment had been procured by fraud, for example, would require separate proceedings. No such application had been made in this case. The court dismissed the motion; the judgment does not record a separate order on costs.