The High Court has refused the Revenue Commissioners’ application to attach money due to H from settled defamation proceedings, leaving the settlement funds subject to directions in ongoing Circuit Court family proceedings.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 30 October 2019. The Revenue Commissioners sought a garnishee order that would have enabled them to recover money owed under three judgments against H, dated 17 February 2017, 7 September 2017 and 27 November 2018. The application was brought by notice of motion on 23 May 2019.
The funds arose from defamation proceedings that had settled, making H entitled to a payment. The judgment said a separate debt under a 2012 Circuit Court order remained unpaid. That order, made after divorce proceedings, reaffirmed settlement terms between Mr H and Ms H.
In January 2015, on a notice of re-entry concerning maintenance arrears, the Circuit Court recorded that H would authorise his solicitor to hold any money he received from the defamation case and not dissipate it until the matter was resolved. The solicitor gave an undertaking. The High Court said those Circuit Court proceedings had not concluded and that the funds were to be held in the solicitor’s client account pending any direction from that court.
Justice Barrett said it was not clear that Ms H had an interest in the settlement money, but the debt could not be treated as free of any interest in the circumstances. He also considered that the High Court should not intrude into unfinished Circuit Court proceedings, particularly given the apparent intention for the settlement money to be applied against the outstanding debt under the 2012 order.
The judgment referred to an earlier High Court decision on garnishee orders, which said the remedy is discretionary and may be refused in appropriate circumstances. The Revenue Commissioners’ solicitor had averred that H had assets in the jurisdiction that could be subject to more ordinary enforcement, including possible judgment mortgages over land, and that Revenue held security for its judgments.
The court refused all reliefs sought. It did not determine the final destination of the settlement money, which remained for the Circuit Court to address.