O'Shea -v- Butler and Butler Ltd -v- Bosod Ltd & ors [2017] IESC 65 (18 October 2017)

O'Shea -v- Butler and Butler Ltd -v- Bosod Ltd & ors [2017] IESC 65 (18 October 2017)

The application for recusal of Clarke J. and MacMenamin J. was dismissed because no reasonable apprehension of bias arose from their prior involvement, which was limited to routine interlocutory or procedural orders. The substantive appeals turned on whether the settlement agreement contained a default clause; the court found, based on affidavits, forensic evidence, and the contemporaneous transcript, that the agreement did include the default clause. Allegations of fraud or forgery were unsupported by credible evidence. The High Court orders and enforcement proceedings were valid.

Citation
[2017] IESC 65
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Crohan O'Shea; Defendant/appellant/applicant: Michael Butler; Defendant/appellant/applicant: William Butler; Plaintiff/appellant/applicant: Michael and Thomas Butler Limited; Defendant/respondent: Bosod Limited; Defendant/respondent: Thomas O'Driscoll
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Recusal Application and Substantive Appeals
Outcome
Recusal application dismissed; substantive appeals dismissed; High Court orders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judges, Settlement Agreements, Fraud on the Court, Well Charging Orders, Enforcement of Judgments, Company Law—financial Assistance, Objective Bias
Civil Procedure Contract Law Company Law Recusal of Judges Settlement Agreements Fraud on the Court Well Charging Orders Enforcement of Judgments +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crohan O'Shea

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Butler

Defendant/appellant/applicant

William Butler

Defendant/appellant/applicant

Michael and Thomas Butler Limited

Plaintiff/appellant/applicant

Bosod Limited

Defendant/respondent

Thomas O'Driscoll

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Recusal Application and Substantive Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two Supreme Court judges (Clarke J. and MacMenamin J.) should recuse themselves for objective bias
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement of 11 February 2008 contained a default clause permitting judgment in default of payment
  3. 3 Whether subsequent High Court orders and enforcement proceedings were valid

Ratio Decidendi

The application for recusal of Clarke J. and MacMenamin J. was dismissed because no reasonable apprehension of bias arose from their prior involvement, which was limited to routine interlocutory or procedural orders. The substantive appeals turned on whether the settlement agreement contained a default clause; the court found, based on affidavits, forensic evidence, and the contemporaneous transcript, that the agreement did include the default clause. Allegations of fraud or forgery were unsupported by credible evidence. The High Court orders and enforcement proceedings were valid.

Court Disposition

Recusal application dismissed; substantive appeals dismissed; High Court orders affirmed.

Orders

  • Application for recusal of Clarke J. and MacMenamin J. dismissed.
  • Appeals against High Court judgment and well charging order dismissed.