The Supreme Court has dismissed Michael Charalambous’s appeal against a High Court decision striking out claims that sought to set aside a 2008 Circuit Court consent order concerning the Avoca Inn in County Wicklow.
The appeal was about the High Court’s decision on a motion to strike out parts of Mr Charalambous’s statement of claim as vexatious. The Supreme Court did not hear a fresh trial of the underlying dispute over rent, the lease or possession of the premises.
The original proceedings began with an ejectment civil bill brought by Margaret Nagle. She claimed rent arrears, unpaid rates and other relief under a lease of the public house to Mr Charalambous. He denied owing money, said he had overpaid rent, and counterclaimed.
On 5 February 2008, the Circuit Court made orders by consent. It ordered that Ms Nagle recover possession, but stayed enforcement on terms that included weekly payments and payment of arrears and costs. The order recorded that Mr Charalambous was represented by a solicitor. He later appealed, but the High Court refused that appeal because the order had been made by consent.
In later High Court proceedings, Mr Charalambous sought, among other relief, to set aside the consent order, regain possession and obtain specific performance of the lease. Ms Nagle applied to strike out several of those claims. The High Court granted that application in July 2010.
In the Supreme Court, Mr Charalambous challenged the handling of evidence about the settlement, including his opportunity to respond to an affidavit from his former solicitor, and argued that he had not authorised the settlement. The Court noted the dispute between solicitors but said any contentious evidence about it was not for this appeal, although it might be addressed elsewhere.
The Court held that no recognised legal ground had been raised to set aside the consent order. It said the formal Circuit Court order was clear; the unsigned note of terms was not determinative. The Supreme Court found no error of law in the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, leaving the strike-out of the specified claims in place.
The judgment did not make an Isaac Wunder order. It asked the parties to address whether such an order would be appropriate in the circumstances.