McAteer v Magee: The Court of Appeal Re-Affirms the Davis Principles and Sets a “Highly-Exceptional” Threshold for Injunctions that Stifle Parallel Litigation

1. Introduction

McAteer v Magee & Ors [2024] NICA 73 is a Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland decision delivered ex tempore on 12 November 2024 by McCloskey LJ (with Horner LJ concurring).
The appellant, Mr Daniel McAteer (a self-represented, experienced litigant), asked the High Court to grant an injunction restraining several defendants—including solicitors and their firms—from “participating in ongoing actions” against him in the High Court. McAlinden J dismissed the application as an “absolute nonsense,” an abuse of process, and awarded indemnity costs against Mr McAteer.
Mr McAteer appealed. His notice was filed about two months late. The Court of Appeal therefore had to decide two intertwined issues:

Should time be extended under Order 59 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the Court of Judicature?
Even if extended, did the appeal raise any meritorious point?

2. Summary of the Judgment

Extension of time refused: Applying the seven principles in Davis v Northern Ireland Carriers, the Court held that a two-month delay was moderate but unjustified. Lack of merit was decisive.
No leave to appeal required: By reference to s 35 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, the Court confirmed that an interlocutory order determining an injunction application can be appealed as of right; leave is unnecessary.
Merits of the proposed appeal: Even if time had been extended, the appeal would have failed because the application below disclosed no “serious issue to be tried” under American Cyanamid and constituted an abuse of process.
High threshold for “anti-participation” injunctions: The Court emphasised that any injunctive relief preventing parties (or their lawyers) from participating in live litigation can be granted only in “highly exceptional circumstances where compelling grounds are established.” None existed here.
Allegation of judicial bias unsubstantiated: A last-minute, skeletal claim of bias against McAlinden J was dismissed as a “makeweight … manifestly devoid of merit.”
Costs: The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal, mirroring the indemnity costs awarded at first instance.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Davis v Northern Ireland Carriers Ltd (1979) – The landmark authority setting out seven principles guiding extensions of time for appeals. The Court went through each principle methodically, finding the fifth (“point of substance”) and seventh (“rules to be observed”) fatal to the application.
Re Mahmud [2023] NICA 4 – Cited only to note the continued elaboration of Davis; no substantive difference for present purposes.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 – Provides the familiar tripartite test for interim injunctive relief. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal agreed the first limb (“serious question to be tried”) was not met.
Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, s 35 – Statutory framework governing appeals from interlocutory orders. The Court clarified that sub-paragraph (1)(f) removes the leave requirement where the order below “determined an application for an injunction”.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Extension of time
The Court applied Davis holistically: although the delay was not extreme, there was no legitimate excuse and no arguable merit. Principle five (existence of a “point of substance”) and principle seven (primacy of the rules) weighed decisively against extension.

b) Jurisdiction and threshold for the injunction sought
Even assuming the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to restrain parties from participating in other live actions, the Court declared that such power is exercisable only in “highly exceptional circumstances” requiring “compelling grounds.” This language is the judgment’s key doctrinal contribution: it elevates the threshold beyond the normal American Cyanamid test when litigants seek to paralyse other proceedings or gag opponents’ lawyers.

c) Abuse of process
Both courts labelled the application an “abuse of process.” Important factors:

It attempted a collateral challenge to decisions of other judges.
It sought to curtail ordinary rights of defence and representation.
Allegations relied on were “assertions no more than that.”

The concept of abuse thus dovetailed with the lack of any “serious issue” under American Cyanamid.

d) Bias allegation
Because the bias ground was not properly pleaded, particularised, or argued, the Court treated it as a makeweight. This illustrates that appellate courts will not rescue deficient allegations by trawling the record on their own initiative.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

Clarifies standards for “anti-participation” injunctions: Practitioners will cite McAteer as authority that restraining orders aimed at ongoing litigation require not just the American Cyanamid test but proof of “highly exceptional” circumstances.
Re-affirms rigidity of appeal deadlines: The Court’s rigorous application of Davis reinforces that Northern Irish appellate time-limits are strictly enforced, especially where the appeal is meritless.
Discourages vexatious litigation: The blunt language (“absolute nonsense,” “utter abuse”) signals judicial intolerance of collateral or duplicative proceedings, potentially supporting future applications for civil restraint or vexatious litigant orders.
Procedural guidance: Litigants are reminded that:
- Leave is unnecessary to appeal an interlocutory injunction order (s 35 J(NI)A 1978).
- Allegations of judicial bias must be articulated fully and promptly.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Interlocutory Order: A court order made in the middle of litigation—temporary, not final, but can affect parties’ rights until trial.
American Cyanamid Test: Three-stage test for interim injunctions: (1) serious question to be tried; (2) adequacy of damages; (3) balance of convenience. If any limb fails, the injunction should not be granted.
Inherent Jurisdiction: The court’s residual power to control its own process when no statute or rule expressly applies.
Indemnity Costs: A costs order more punitive than the normal “standard” basis: every reasonable expense of the successful party is recoverable, and ambiguities are resolved in that party’s favour.
Extension of Time: A request to file an appeal (or other step) after the deadline has passed. Courts grant it sparingly, guided (in NI) by Davis.
Makeweight: A point added only to bulk out an argument, carrying little or no substance.

5. Conclusion

McAteer v Magee is not ground-breaking in doctrinal breadth, but it is important for two reasons. First, it puts beyond doubt that injunctions designed to silence or sideline opponents in concurrent litigation will be entertained only in “highly exceptional” circumstances with compelling justification. Secondly, it venerates the integrity of procedural rules: time-limits matter, and meritless appeals will not be indulged. Practitioners should cite McAteer when resisting attempts to weaponise injunctions against adversaries or to justify strict adherence to appellate timetables. For self-represented litigants, the case is a cautionary tale: procedural missteps and unfounded allegations can trigger indemnity costs and reputational damage.