The Court of Appeal refused John Hanrahan’s motion seeking explanations from Allied Irish Banks and its solicitor, and repayment of proceeds from a Standard Life policy. The court said it lacked jurisdiction to grant the orders sought. The parties’ February 2015 settlement therefore remained in force unless set aside by agreement or through proceedings in a court of trial.
The judgment, delivered by Kelly J on 13 April 2015, concerned a settlement of an appeal against a 2004 High Court judgment for €82,498.81 against John and Selina Hanrahan. The settlement set aside that judgment and substituted a substantially lower sum, with enforcement postponed for a number of years if specified payments were made. The judgment does not state the substituted sum.
The motion arose after Mr Hanrahan learned that Standard Life had paid AIB €24,825.01, the final maturity value of a policy. Standard Life confirmed that payment was made on 19 June 2012 under an assignment, after AIB confirmed in May 2012 that it still held the assignment. A 2008 letter from Standard Life had said it was withholding payment pending resolution with AIB. The judgment records that Standard Life later acknowledged that its treatment of Mr Hanrahan was inappropriate and below its usual standards, and had offered him money to address that treatment.
Mr Hanrahan sought an explanation for why he had not been told about the dealings between AIB and Standard Life; an explanation from the bank’s solicitor for using an original principal figure of €82,498.81 rather than the €58,173.80 figure he said should apply after the policy proceeds were taken into account; and an order requiring AIB to return the money. Those were his requests and contention, not findings by the court that the money had been wrongfully removed or that the settlement figures were incorrect.
The court said the consent settlement was a contract between the parties, incorporated into a court order, and that the Court of Appeal had not negotiated or approved its terms. It could not compel the requested explanations or order repayment. AIB had indicated it would agree to setting the settlement aside if Mr Hanrahan wished. The judges noted that setting it aside would revive both the original judgment and the Hanrahans’ appeal; Finlay Geoghegan J also said interest accrued since 16 February 2004 would revive with the judgment. Kelly J suggested Mr Hanrahan could seek advice about relief in a trial court, while expressing the view that the settlement appeared advantageous to the couple. The court refused the motion; Finlay Geoghegan J also described the result as dismissing the appeal.