The High Court dismissed Patrick O’Connor’s proceedings concerning the proposed sale of a property at 16 Amberley Heights, Douglas, Co. Cork, finding that the case sought to relitigate matters already decided. It also granted an order restricting further proceedings against specified parties without leave of the court.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern said the proceedings were an abuse of process and were also barred under the rule in Henderson v. Henderson. The defendants had sought to add receivers Michael Cotter and Luke Charleton as defendants, remove Sherry FitzGerald Limited and Ronan Daly Jermyn, dismiss the case and obtain a restriction on further proceedings.
The judge added the two receivers, whom he said should be parties because the plaintiff sought to restrain the sale. He declined to strike out the existing defendants. The court’s order also granted the requested Isaac Wunder order under paragraph 6 of the defendants’ motion. The judgment does not set out its full terms; the motion sought to require the plaintiff to obtain leave before bringing proceedings against named parties and specified people connected with the receivership.
The judgment records that Bank of Scotland plc had appointed the receivers over the property. In earlier proceedings, Cregan J. confirmed their appointment as valid. In March 2015, Cregan J. entered judgment for the bank against Mr O’Connor. The judgment gives two slightly different figures: €7,683,999.96 in one passage and €7,683,999.36 in another. Mr O’Connor’s appeals against orders made by Cregan J. and Haughton J. were still awaiting decisions at the time of this judgment.
In separate receiver proceedings, Haughton J. dismissed Mr O’Connor’s challenge under the Henderson v. Henderson rule, holding that issues which could have been raised earlier should not be litigated in later proceedings. The present judgment recounts that, during the earlier lis pendens proceedings, Mr O’Connor confirmed that his challenge to the receivers’ appointment was confined to an allegedly incorrect map relating to a separate housing estate, not the Douglas property.
Mr Justice McGovern said the current case followed shortly after the dismissal of the receiver proceedings and sought similar relief against the receivers’ selling agents and solicitors. He concluded that any new matter or argument could and should have been raised earlier. He noted that Mr O’Connor’s appeal rights remained, but said he had reached the end of the road for further proceedings concerning the property and the receivers’ entitlement to dispose of it.
A separate motion by Mr O’Connor seeking an injunction concerning the property had been adjourned pending determination of the defendants’ motion. The judgment does not state the eventual disposition of that separate motion.