The Supreme Court has refused to suspend enforcement of a €9.68 million judgment against Jerry Beades while he pursues a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights, but granted him a further four-week stay to arrange his affairs.
In a judgment delivered on 10 December 2019, Mr Justice O’Donnell said the Supreme Court’s July decision dismissing Mr Beades’s appeal was final and conclusive. A Strasbourg complaint was not an appeal from that decision and could not itself reverse the judgment between Mr Beades and Bank of Scotland plc, he said.
The High Court had granted the bank liberty to enter final judgment for €9,684,987.04 in July 2012. The Supreme Court dismissed Mr Beades’s appeal on 29 July 2019. It later awarded the appeal costs to the bank and briefly stayed both the judgment and costs order to allow Mr Beades to bring a properly notified application for a stay.
Mr Beades said he had lodged an application with the Strasbourg court on 27 September 2019. His submissions raised complaints about summary judgment procedures and his lack of legal assistance, and alleged that the Supreme Court had not adequately addressed his claimed defence. He also argued that enforcement would jeopardise his business and its employees. The judgment records that he relied on an alleged bank undertaking to continue funding a development until apartments were completed.
The court said the Strasbourg proceedings concerned alleged breaches by Ireland of the European Convention on Human Rights. Even if successful, they could lead to relief against the State, but would not undo the final domestic judgment between the bank and Mr Beades. The court also noted that no Convention or constitutional issue had been raised in the original proceedings and that the Supreme Court’s July judgment had addressed the arguments made on appeal.
Mr Justice O’Donnell said it was unnecessary to decide whether a stay could ever be granted while a Strasbourg complaint was pending. The circumstances here did not justify the exceptional step of an indefinite stay, and the court dismissed that application. It granted a further four-week stay from 10 December, noting the time already elapsed since the substantive judgment and that the bank had not been particularly active in pursuing the claim.