Kirwan v Maguerite Connors & Ors (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 120 (18 May 2023)

Kirwan v Maguerite Connors & Ors (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 120 (18 May 2023)

The Court held that the applicant's allegations, even if taken at their height, did not meet the exceptional threshold required to justify review or setting aside of a perfected appellate judgment. The application was based on repetitive, unsubstantiated claims of fraud, forgery, and procedural irregularity, none of which objectively demonstrated a fundamental denial of justice or a clear and significant breach of constitutional rights. The principle of finality of judgments prevailed, and the application was refused without a hearing on the merits.

Citation
[2023] IECA 120
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Brendan Kirwan; Defendant/respondent: Marguerite Connors trading under the style of MJ O’Connor Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: MJ O’Connor Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: Eamonn Buttle; Defendant/respondent: Filbeck Limited; Defendant/respondent: Norman Buttle; Defendant/respondent: Mary Buttle; Defendant/respondent: Hilary Buttle; Defendant/respondent: John O’Leary trading under the style of MJ O’Connor Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: Brid O’Leary trading under the style of MJ O’Connor Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Review of Court of Appeal Judgment After Dismissal of Three Appeals
Outcome
Application for review refused; no hearing on the merits justified.
Legal Topics
Finality of Judgments, Review of Judgments, Fraud Allegations, Delay in Proceedings, Natural Justice
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Finality of Judgments Review of Judgments Fraud Allegations Delay in Proceedings Natural Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan Kirwan

Plaintiff/appellant

Marguerite Connors trading under the style of MJ O’Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

MJ O’Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Eamonn Buttle

Defendant/respondent

Filbeck Limited

Defendant/respondent

Norman Buttle

Defendant/respondent

Mary Buttle

Defendant/respondent

Hilary Buttle

Defendant/respondent

John O’Leary trading under the style of MJ O’Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Brid O’Leary trading under the style of MJ O’Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Review of Court of Appeal Judgment After Dismissal of Three Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should review or set aside its perfected judgment on grounds of alleged fraud, forgery, perjury, suppression of evidence, and constitutional violations; Whether the threshold for exceptional review of a final appellate judgment is met

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicant's allegations, even if taken at their height, did not meet the exceptional threshold required to justify review or setting aside of a perfected appellate judgment. The application was based on repetitive, unsubstantiated claims of fraud, forgery, and procedural irregularity, none of which objectively demonstrated a fundamental denial of justice or a clear and significant breach of constitutional rights. The principle of finality of judgments prevailed, and the application was refused without a hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

Application for review refused; no hearing on the merits justified.

Orders

  • Application to set aside or correct the judgment refused.
  • No leave granted for a hearing on the merits.