The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by six Superwood companies against the dismissal of their 2014 claim against insurers, affirming that the proceedings disclosed no cause of action and were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. It also upheld an order requiring the companies to obtain the court’s leave before bringing further proceedings concerning the dispute against the insurers and people involved on their behalf.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 1 March 2017, concerned a claim seeking damages for breach of insurance contract, negligence, misrepresentation and alleged fraud in the procurement of earlier court judgments. The companies did not seek orders setting aside those earlier judgments or directing a new trial.
The dispute arose from a 1987 fire at Superwood premises at Corke Abbey, Bray. The companies claimed insured losses exceeding IR£2 million. After a lengthy trial, the High Court dismissed their claims in 1991. The Supreme Court later allowed an appeal and sent the case back for retrial. In 2001, after a further 281-day trial, the High Court awarded the companies about IR£150,000 plus interest against three insurers. The companies’ appeal did not reach a substantive hearing because they failed to provide court-ordered security for costs, and it was dismissed in 2004.
The 2014 claim alleged, among other things, that insurers and their lawyers had concealed parts of the transcript of the 2001 judgment and procured earlier orders by fraud. The Court of Appeal said the companies had not shown prejudice from the alleged transcript differences or evidence of fraudulent intent. It found that the disputed pages concerned matters after the judgment, including an injunction application, corrections to the transcript and other post-judgment issues. The judgment also noted that the companies’ solicitor had been present during delivery of the judgment and had obtained transcripts from the High Court in July 2001.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the allegations could not establish a viable cause of action or justify setting aside the earlier orders. It held that the new proceedings sought to relitigate matters already dealt with and that the High Court had properly dismissed them.
The appeal also challenged the restraint on future proceedings. The Court of Appeal upheld it, extending the requirement for leave to proceedings concerning the earlier and current cases against the insurers, their servants or agents, and people involved on the insurers’ behalf, including solicitors, counsel, witnesses and retained experts. The order requires prior leave; the judgment did not prohibit applications for leave.