McCool v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (Approved) [2022] IECA 56 (11 March 2022)

McCool v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (Approved) [2022] IECA 56 (11 March 2022)

The assignments to Mr. McCool were entered into solely to circumvent the rule in Battle, constituting an abuse of process and invalid. Even if not invalid on that ground, the assignments savoured of champerty due to the possibility of onward transfer to a disinterested third party, and were thus contrary to public policy and invalid. Impecuniosity of the company does not justify an exception to the rule. Mr. McCool could not be substituted or joined as plaintiff.

Citation
[2022] IECA 56
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Eugene McCool; Plaintiff: McCool Controls and Engineering Limited; Defendant/respondent: Honeywell Control Systems Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders Regarding Substitution of Plaintiff and Assignment of Cause of Action
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Cause of Action, Champerty, Abuse of Process, Company Representation in Litigation, Impecuniosity and Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Assignment of Cause of Action Champerty Abuse of Process Company Representation in Litigation Impecuniosity and Access to 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene McCool

Plaintiff/appellant

McCool Controls and Engineering Limited

Plaintiff

Honeywell Control Systems Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders Regarding Substitution of Plaintiff and Assignment of Cause of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment of the company's cause of action to Mr. McCool was valid or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the assignment savoured of champerty and was contrary to public policy
  3. 3 Whether Mr. McCool could be substituted as plaintiff or joined as co-plaintiff in the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The assignments to Mr. McCool were entered into solely to circumvent the rule in Battle, constituting an abuse of process and invalid. Even if not invalid on that ground, the assignments savoured of champerty due to the possibility of onward transfer to a disinterested third party, and were thus contrary to public policy and invalid. Impecuniosity of the company does not justify an exception to the rule. Mr. McCool could not be substituted or joined as plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Order of the Master substituting Mr. McCool for the company as plaintiff discharged.
  • Mr. McCool's applications to be joined or substituted as plaintiff dismissed.