The High Court amended an order made on 23 May 2019 in a dispute involving Athlone Town Stadium Ltd, its directors and David Dully, correcting the record of which parties were before the court and what was ordered. The court did not decide the company’s separate application to set the May order aside.
In a judgment delivered on 15 October 2019, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the May order’s wording did not accurately reflect what had happened. The May application concerned Dully’s claim against the second, third and fourth defendants, who were described in the judgment as the company’s directors. The company had not formally appeared through its own legal representatives that day.
The court amended the order under the slip rule, which allows correction of an order that does not reflect what occurred. Changes included adding the directors to the title, clarifying that the hearing concerned the claim against them, and recording that counsel for those defendants said an undertaking was being given on behalf of the company and the third and fourth defendants. The judge said a recording of the hearing confirmed who made that statement.
The amendment also removed wording that said the company had been ordered to discontinue appeals. The judge said he had noted undertakings, while the proposed discontinuance appeared in the parties’ agreed statement and was not itself an order made by the court. The order’s addressees were also changed to replace the company’s solicitors with Prospect Law Solicitors, who acted for the directors.
The company had applied to vacate the May order and sought a declaration that it was not bound by undertakings in the agreed statement. It also sought repayment or lodging of €50,000 connected with the appeals. Those substantive requests were not determined in this judgment. The judge allowed the company to file an affidavit from Declan Molloy for the slip-rule issue, while leaving other parties an opportunity to respond if it was relied on for the application to set aside the order.
The court adjourned the matter to 21 October 2019 for mention. The company was given liberty to file a further affidavit exhibiting a 15 May email and other evidence supporting its set-aside application. The third and fourth defendants were directed to tell Prospect Law before that date whether they wanted the firm to continue acting for them; if not, they were to attend court at 11am so any necessary further orders could be made.