The Supreme Court has dismissed Patrick Malone’s appeal against a High Court decision striking out his claim over a loan and a settlement concerning lands in County Louth. The appeal was dismissed because the High Court had correctly concluded that the claim was bound to fail after the parties settled earlier proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2019, Ms Justice Irvine said the High Court had acted within its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss a claim that could not succeed. The Supreme Court found no error of law or fact in that decision. It did not retry the dispute over the loan or make new findings on the allegations of fraud.
Catherine Allison had brought possession proceedings in 2007 after Malone failed to meet repayment obligations under a written loan agreement. The agreement, dated 27 January 2006, provided a €160,000 loan to help Malone complete the purchase of lands in two County Louth folios. The lands were to secure the liabilities under the agreement.
Those proceedings were settled in January 2009 with the benefit of legal advice to Malone. The terms provided for sale of the lands and payment to Allison from the net proceeds of €230,000, together with Courts Act interest, in full and final settlement of her claim. Malone later sought to reopen the proceedings, arguing, among other things, that the loan was illegal and its penalty provisions unlawful. He did not succeed.
In July 2011, Malone started separate proceedings seeking declarations that the loan and settlement were void. He also alleged fraud and deception, including in connection with a bungalow he believed was part of the property he was buying. The High Court struck out the claim under its inherent jurisdiction as bound to fail. It had declined to strike it out under the separate rule allowing dismissal where pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action.
On appeal, Malone said he had been pressured by his former legal advisers into the settlement and regretted not having the chance to cross-examine Allison. Justice Irvine said the court could not pronounce on the allegation of pressure. She concluded that even if it were proved, it would not provide a basis to challenge the settlement: Malone knew and understood its terms, and the relevant matters were known to him before he agreed to settle.
The judgment noted that Malone believed the bungalow was on lands in another folio, owned by three named individuals and subject to a charge to Ulster Bank. Those matters formed part of the background; the Supreme Court’s order was to dismiss the appeal. The Court also said, though it was unnecessary to decide, that the issues appeared to have become res judicata following an earlier Supreme Court decision in March 2012.