The Supreme Court has dismissed Michael Charalambous’s appeal and affirmed an order striking out claims he brought against Margaret Nagle over the Avoca Inn in County Wicklow.
The appeal concerned a High Court decision in July 2010 to strike out parts of Mr Charalambous’s statement of claim as frivolous and vexatious. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Macken J. on 31 March 2011, held that the High Court judge was entitled to make that order.
The dispute arose from a 21-year lease of the Avoca Inn and associated premises, made in April 2002 between Mr Charalambous and Ms Nagle and her late husband. Ms Nagle later brought Circuit Court ejectment proceedings, alleging breaches including unpaid rent, rates and failure to provide tax clearance certificates. Mr Charalambous disputed the claims, said he had overpaid rent and counterclaimed for relief against forfeiture.
On 5 February 2008, the Circuit Court ordered that Ms Nagle recover possession. The order recorded that it was made “on consent” and set conditions for a stay of enforcement, including weekly rent payments and payment of arrears and costs. The Supreme Court noted that Mr Charalambous appealed, but the High Court refused his applications in April and May 2008, treating the Circuit Court order as a final order made on consent. The possession order was executed in July 2008.
In the later High Court action, Mr Charalambous alleged for the first time in court documents that he had not authorised his solicitor to settle the Circuit Court case and had instructed him not to do so. Ms Nagle’s defence disputed that account. The Supreme Court recorded competing affidavit evidence, including the High Court judge’s conclusion that the solicitor had implied authority, that instructions had not been withdrawn, and that Mr Charalambous had consented to the order.
The Supreme Court found there was ample material for that conclusion. It also rejected arguments that the settlement note’s lack of a signature made it ineffective under the Statute of Frauds, or otherwise invalid. The court said final orders could not be reopened on the grounds advanced in this case; it noted that fraud had not been pleaded.
The appeal did not determine the underlying lease dispute anew. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order striking out the specified claims, including requests to set aside the earlier orders, return the case to the Circuit Court, obtain possession of the inn, or enforce the lease.