Gladney v H [2019] IEHC 713 (30 October 2019)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 30th October, 2019.

1. By Circuit Court Order of Stewart J. of 26.06.2012 following on family law proceedings

brought pursuant to the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, the learned judge made an

order, inter alia, re-affirming certain settlement terms between Mr H and Ms H.

2. In a further Circuit Court Order of 26.01.2015, made pursuant to a notice of re-entry,

Sheahan J. notes that in respect of arrears owing on the maintenance order, Mr H “will

authorise his solicitor…to ensure that any or all [monies] that he receives in his

defamation proceedings against [a named newspaper] will be held by…[that] solicitor and

not dissipated until this matter [presumably the non-observance of the order of Stewart

J.] is resolved”. The solicitor was so authorised and gave a related undertaking.

3. The defamation proceedings were settled between the parties, pursuant to which Mr H

became entitled to payment of a sum of money. The debt arising under the order of

4. Separately, Mr H is a judgment debtor of the Revenue Commissioners for substantial

amounts of money owing pursuant to judgments of 17.02.2017, 7.09.2017 and

27. 11.2018 (the ‘Three Judgments’). The Revenue Commissioners followed the course of

the defamation proceedings in the newspapers and kept a watching brief in court on the

anticipated hearing dates. Following on the settlement of the defamation proceedings, the

Revenue Commissioners have come seeking a garnishee order which would enable the

payment of the settlement monies to them. Those proceedings were commenced by

5. As the court noted in its judgment in AIB plc v. McGuigan [2018] IEHC 67, to which it was

“Among the matters to which a judgment creditor must aver in the affidavit

evidence supporting its ex parte application [i.e. without the judgment debtor

present] are that the debt to be attached does not belong to a third person and

that no third person has an interest in it….The granting of a garnishee order is a

discretionary matter. So even where the various necessary averments are made,

the judge before whom application is made nonetheless has the power to refuse the

relief. Examples of circumstances in which a garnishee order might be refused

include but are not limited to where attachment would not leave a judgment debtor

6. These proceedings have been brought on notice to the defendant; however, it seems to

the court that the absence of interest, the discretionary nature of the relief, and the

pointer as to the types of application in which a garnishee order might be refused all

afford useful guidance to the court as to how it should treat with the within application.

7. It seems to the court that there are a number of reasons why the garnishee order now

(i) it is clear from the order of the Circuit Court (Sheahan J.) that the proceedings

before it are not concluded; Sheahan J. requires that any monies received in the

defamation proceedings “not [be] dissipated until this matter is resolved”; the

matter has not yet been resolved and the court does not see how it could properly

intrude into unfinished Circuit Court proceedings in the circumstances presenting;

(ii) although one cannot say that Ms H has an interest in the settlement monies, it does

not seem correct to say that the debt is unclouded by any interest; absent the

garnishee order the monies must be paid to Mr H’s solicitor who is to hold them in

his client account pending whatever direction the Circuit Court may give; and/or

(iii) given the ongoing Circuit Court proceedings, given that those are family law

proceedings, and given that the apparent intention of the Circuit Court is to apply

the monies in settlement of the debt outstanding under the judgment of Stewart J.,

it seems to the court that this would be and is an appropriate case in which,

consistent with its observations in McGuigan, albeit that the circumstances of this

case are not quite the same as those presenting there, it ought to and will exercise

its discretion to refuse the relief sought at this time by the Revenue

Commissioners. The court is buttressed in this last conclusion by the properly

forthright averment of the solicitor who has sworn the grounding affidavit for the

“I…have been advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the Defendant [Mr H] is

possessed of certain assets within the jurisdiction which could be subject to a more

ordinary process of execution. I say and believe that it would be (and indeed has

been) possible to convert those Judgments into Judgment Mortgages and,

thereafter, their registration as against certain lands and premises owned by the

Defendant….In that regard, I do say and believe that the Plaintiff [the Revenue

8. For the reasons aforesaid, all the reliefs sought are respectfully refused.

Result: Reliefs refused

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Gladney v H [2019] IEHC 713 (30 October 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/2019_IEHC_713.html Cite as: [2019] IEHC 713

High Court of Ireland Decisions