The High Court amended a 2002 order enforcing an arbitration award, adding judgment for €47,264.38 against Tony Dixon and Tina Dixon. The plaintiff, Simon J. Kelly & Partners, cannot recover any interest on that sum under the amended order.
Ms Justice Laffoy delivered the judgment on 3 December 2012. The original order, made by Smyth J. on 13 May 2002, allowed the plaintiff to enforce the award “in the same manner as a Judgment and Order to the same effect”. It did not expressly order the defendants to pay the award amount. The judgment said that, as a result, judgment had never been entered for the €47,264.38 awarded.
The plaintiff applied to amend the order to enter judgment for that amount as of 13 May 2002. It also sought, as alternative relief, judgment for €82,554.93 or another amount including interest, but its counsel did not press that alternative at the hearing.
The award had been made on 27 November 2001. In 2006, the plaintiff registered a judgment mortgage against land on Folio 21952F in County Galway, recording €69,774.05 as due. The judgment said that registration should not have been sought or made. The plaintiff had applied to discharge the mortgage, which was removed from the folio in November 2012.
The plaintiff had also sought leave in 2011 to issue execution more than six years after the 2002 order. That application was refused because judgment had not been entered for the amount due under the award.
Justice Laffoy considered the court’s power to amend a final order, including the principles discussed by the Supreme Court in McMullen v. Clancy. She concluded that the 2002 court intended judgment to be entered for the award total, based on the affidavit evidence then before it, and that the omission was a mistake. She found the court had inherent jurisdiction to amend the order, provided the change could be made without injustice.
The plaintiff had given no explanation for waiting about ten and a half years to seek the amendment. The defendants opposed the application but filed no replying affidavit identifying specific prejudice; the court also had no evidence that third-party rights would be affected. However, Justice Laffoy held that allowing recovery of interest after the delay would be unjust to the defendants.
The court therefore amended the 13 May 2002 order to require the defendants to pay €47,264.38, while expressly barring the plaintiff from recovering any interest on that amount.