Corporate Recovery
High Court sides with
Receivers
Date: June2016
High Court sides with Receivers
Attempts to Re-Litigate and Groundlessly Challenge Receivers an Abuse of Process
The recent decision in Patrick O’Connor v Sherry FitzGerald and Ronan Daly Jermyn is a culmination
of an assortment of claims involving the Plaintiff, Mr. O’Connor.
The first piece of litigation was commenced against Mr. O’Connor by Bank of Scotland in 2012. The
Bank ultimately obtained a judgment against Mr. O’Connor in the sum of €7,683,999.96 relating to a
property loan.
At the same time (2012), Mr. O’Connor issued a set of proceedings against the Bank. It involved the
registration of a lis pendens (a legal burden that restricts the way land can be dealt with) over the
relevant property. Judge Cregan removed this lis pendens and at the same time, confirmed the validity
of the Bank’s appointment of Receivers over the property.
Despite this, Mr. O’Connor challenged the Receivers’ appointment in a fresh set of proceedings issued
in 2015. Judge Haughton relied on an established rule that prohibits the re-litigation of claims, in
rejecting Mr. O’Connor’s arguments. Emphasising that it was in the parties’ and the public’s interests
to have finality in litigation, he determined that the 2015 proceedings were an attempt to re-litigate an
issue already determined by Judge Cregan.
Shortly after the decision in the above case, Mr. O’Connor commenced the most recent piece of
litigation against Sherry FitzGerald, the Estate Agent facilitating the sale of the property on behalf of
the Receivers.
On 8 June 2016, Judge McGovern held that the commencement of these proceedings by Mr.
O’Connor was nothing but an attempt to circumvent the previous decisions of his colleagues and to
frustrate the Receivers in their attempt to dispose of the property.
Judge McGovern was required to carefully balance various conflicting rights and in doing so, relied on
a decision of the Supreme Court; O’Reilly McCabe v Minister for Justice & Patrick Cusack Smith & Co.
In that case the Supreme Court held that a Plaintiff’s right to access justice is not absolute, the right of
opposing parties not to be exposed to repeated, vexatious litigation must also be given due
consideration.
On this basis, Judge McGovern restrained Mr. O’Connor from instituting future litigation without first
obtaining the permission of the Court. In addition, he dismissed the latest proceedings, labeling the
behaviour of Mr. O’Connor “an abuse of process”.
For further information on this topic please contact:
Doug Smith, Partner, Corporate Recovery, E [email protected]
Jennifer Murphy, Trainee, Corporate Recovery, E [email protected]
This document is intended to provide a general overview and guidance on a particular topic. It is provided wholly without any
liability or responsibility on the part of Eugene F. Collins and does not replace the necessity to obtain specific legal advice.
© Eugene F. Collins 2016