McAteer & Anor v Guram & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns three applications by the Plaintiffs/Appellants arising from a prior High Court dispute over a sale and leaseback agreement of a property known as the Roebuck Inn. The original proceedings were initiated by the Defendants/Respondents in 2003. In 2008, the High Court found that the agreement had been procured by undue influence and false representations by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs appealed but their appeal was struck out in 2010 for failure to comply with a security for costs order. Subsequent attempts by the Plaintiffs to set aside that order and extend time were dismissed.

In 2013, the Plaintiffs issued a new writ (the 2013 tort action) alleging fraud and abuse of process related to the original proceedings. The Defendants applied to strike out this writ, and in January 2017 the trial judge struck it out under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature. The Plaintiffs sought to appeal this decision out of time and without leave, which was dismissed. They later sought leave and extension of time to appeal, which was refused.

The present appeal before the Court of Appeal concerns the Plaintiffs' applications for leave and extension of time to appeal the striking out of the 2013 tort action and an application to reopen the earlier Roebuck Inn appeal proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs' application for leave and extension of time to appeal the striking out of the 2013 tort action.
2. If jurisdiction exists, whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted.
3. Whether leave to appeal should be granted.
4. If leave is granted, whether the appeal against the striking out of the 2013 tort action should succeed.
5. Whether the Court should reopen the earlier Roebuck Inn appeal proceedings under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The Plaintiffs submitted that the Court of Appeal had invited them to seek leave to appeal from the trial judge after dismissing their initial appeal on procedural grounds.
• They contended that the delay in appealing was not due to any default on their part but rather due to procedural misunderstandings and challenges as litigants in person.
• The Plaintiffs alleged that the original judgment was procured by fraud and abuse of process, including interference with their legal aid and misleading the court about the Defendants' financial position.
• They argued that the striking out of the 2013 tort action was premature as the pleadings disclosed arguable claims requiring a full trial.
• Regarding the Roebuck Inn appeal, they sought relief to reopen the appeal or extend time to comply with security for costs, asserting inherent jurisdiction to do so.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Defendants submitted that the Court of Appeal's prior order dismissing the appeal meant that the court was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain further appeals on the matter.
• They argued that the delay of over four years in seeking to appeal was excessive and unjustified, causing serious prejudice to them.
• The Defendants contended that the striking out of the 2013 tort action was appropriate because the claims were unarguable, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
• They asserted that the application to reopen the Roebuck Inn appeal was res judicata and an abuse of court, given that the Court of Appeal had already dismissed identical applications.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed its jurisdiction, concluding it retained jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs' application despite prior dismissal of their appeal on procedural grounds. It noted that the questions raised had not been determined on their merits before.

Regarding the extension of time to appeal, the court acknowledged a significant delay of over four years but considered that the Defendants would not be prejudiced since they had been aware of the appeal intentions and grounds since 2017. The court emphasized that the primary consideration was whether the appeal had merit.

The court analyzed the merits of the appeal against the striking out of the 2013 tort action. It reviewed the legal principles for striking out under Order 18 rule 19, which requires that the claim be plainly and obviously bad or unarguable to justify dismissal without trial.

The court found that the trial judge erred by effectively conducting a mini-trial on one particular allegation of fraud without allowing the Plaintiffs to challenge evidence or obtain discovery. It also found that the trial judge failed to consider the other particulars of fraud and abuse of process pleaded.

The Plaintiffs' statement of claim detailed multiple allegations of fraud and abuse of process, including interference with legal aid, perjury, misleading the court, and staging bankruptcy. The court held these pleadings to be sufficiently particularized and arising from facts post-dating the original judgment, thus disclosing an arguable case.

Consequently, the court concluded that the claims were not unarguable or plainly bad and should not have been struck out summarily. The matter should proceed to a full trial where evidence can be properly examined.

Regarding the application to reopen the earlier Roebuck Inn appeal, the court found that the relief sought was identical to prior applications dismissed by the Court of Appeal. It held that the application constituted re-litigation and abuse of court. Applying the principle from Taylor v Lawrence, the court declined to exercise its exceptional power to reopen the case, given the existence of an alternative remedy in the 2013 tort action.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal against the striking out of the 2013 tort action and DISMISSED the application to reopen the Roebuck Inn appeal.

Implications: The 2013 tort action will proceed to trial, allowing the Plaintiffs to present evidence on their claims of fraud and abuse of process. The court clarified that it made no determination on the merits of these claims at this stage, only that they were not suitable for summary dismissal. The application to reopen the earlier appeal was rejected as an abuse of process, reinforcing the finality of prior appellate decisions. Costs were reserved to the trial judge. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts.