The High Court dismissed David and Robert Patton’s claim to reinstate a judgment against David and Andrew Rudd, ruling that the Pattons’ inordinate and inexcusable delay made it unjust to continue the proceedings. The court also awarded the defendants the costs of the application and the proceedings to date.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 27 May 2014, concerned a claim arising from a judgment originally obtained by David Patton Ltd. The company’s undefended judgment, entered on 24 July 2002, was for €164,162.66, equivalent in the judgment to IR£129,288.60. The company assigned it to the plaintiffs by a deed dated 19 November 2011. The court said leave to issue execution had been granted in March 2003, apparently the only enforcement step taken.
The defendants said they reached a written settlement with their creditors in June 2006, under which €30,000 was paid. The document, signed by the second plaintiff, described the payment as full and final settlement of claims against the Rudd family concerning the judgment mortgage. The plaintiffs argued that the settlement dealt only with discharging the mortgage, not the debt under the judgment. The judgment was marked “Satisfied” in March 2008. The plaintiffs said they did not know of that entry until January 2012, when their solicitors tried to recover on the judgment.
The court did not resolve that disagreement or determine the merits of the claim. It considered whether the plaintiffs’ delay was inordinate and inexcusable. Justice Hedigan found that the delay was inordinate whether measured from the 2002 judgment or from the 2006 settlement. He said the plaintiffs had offered no acceptable or logical explanation for taking no enforcement step until 2012, and concluded that the balance of justice favoured the defendants’ right to fair procedures.
The court therefore dismissed the claim under its inherent jurisdiction. The order addressed the claim on delay grounds; it did not decide whether the 2006 payment settled the judgment debt in full.