The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick O’Connor’s appeal against a High Court refusal to set aside a €650,000 judgment entered against him by consent in 2011.
The appeal, Record Number 2015 No. 148, was decided in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Peart on 18 March 2016. He said the alleged fraud related to the underlying dealings between O’Connor and Seamus Geaney, rather than to how the consent judgment was obtained. The court had been told the parties had reached agreement before the 2011 hearing began.
Geaney had lent O’Connor IR£500,000 in May 2000 to assist with business financial difficulties. Interest was set at two percentage points above the Bank of Ireland single A overdraft rate from 8 December 2000. The amount claimed had risen to €671,100 when proceedings were issued and to €833,343 by February 2003. The case was later adjourned for a full hearing.
In July 2011, the parties, both represented by lawyers, told the High Court they had agreed that judgment could be entered for €650,000 and that O’Connor’s counterclaim would be struck out. No costs order was made. O’Connor later said he regretted settling and alleged that the debt had already been discharged through a sale of land at Terrysland, County Cork, in December 2001. He also alleged fraud and said he had been under duress or badly advised. These were his claims, not findings by the Court of Appeal.
O’Connor applied to set aside the consent judgment. On 26 February 2015, Ms Justice Baker refused the application, finding that the court had not been deceived into entering judgment. She also considered that the same issues had been raised before Mr Justice Ryan in earlier motions and decided against O’Connor.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the fraud allegations did not show deception of the court: the 2011 judge had simply been informed that the parties had settled and consented to judgment. It held that regret about settling was not enough to reopen the case, and emphasised the finality of settlements. The court said it was unnecessary to decide whether the earlier motions made the issues res judicata. The appeal was dismissed; the consent judgment remained in place.