The High Court struck out most of Michael and Brigid Quinn’s proceedings against receiver Ken Fennell, finding that they repeated issues already litigated or issues that could have been raised in earlier proceedings. It left open a claim concerning Michael Quinn’s imprisonment and set out a conditional route for resolving a separate dispute about personal property.
Mr Justice Birmingham gave judgment on 27 January 2014. The proceedings arose from a dispute over a supermarket and petrol station development in Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, and the receiver’s authority over the business and land. The Quinns had been directors and shareholders of Cloughvalley Stores Limited and personally owned two of the plots used in the development.
Earlier judgments had addressed the bank’s security over the lands and the company’s right to occupy land owned by the Quinns. In related proceedings, the court had also made orders restricting the Quinns from entering or using the company’s premises. The present application was brought by Fennell to strike out the new proceedings as an abuse of process or because the issues were res judicata, meaning already decided. He also sought an order requiring the Quinns to obtain leave before bringing further proceedings against him.
Birmingham J held that the current case largely rehashed the earlier Fennell v Quinn proceedings. Other claims, including a complaint about the operation of an off-licence, should have been raised then. The court also rejected a renewed challenge to Fennell’s role as receiver. It said any challenge to the earlier ruling on the bank’s security had to be pursued through the appeal already brought in that case.
The judge treated the imprisonment claim differently. Quinn said he had spent a week in prison in December 2012 for non-payment of a District Court fine, was unaware of the summons and fine, and blamed Fennell, who was then in occupation of the supermarket. The judge expressed no view on whether the claim would succeed, but said it could be pursued because the imprisonment occurred after the earlier hearing.
The court proposed striking out the proceedings subject to two exceptions. The imprisonment claim could continue. For the personal property dispute concerning goods allegedly taken from premises on Shercock Road, the judge suggested it be pursued in separate proceedings already issued. If the Quinns did not agree to discontinue that part of the current case, Fennell could seek a further order addressing the overlap.
On the separate application to restrict future proceedings, the judge said an order would be justified by the pattern of overlapping cases, but would accept undertakings from both Quinns that they would bring no further proceedings against Fennell and would pursue the dispute through existing cases, including the appeal. Without satisfactory undertakings, he said he would prohibit further proceedings against Fennell without leave of the President of the High Court or a nominee. The judgment records that conditional position; it does not state whether undertakings were later given or the order ultimately made.