H v H

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Binchy
• Judgment Date: 14 July 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 145
• Docket Number: Court of Appeal Record No.: 2025/54

In the Matter of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989, And in the Matter of the Family Law Act 1995, And in the Matter of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996

Between/

H

Applicant/Respondent

and

H

Respondent/Appellant

[2025] IECA 145

Faherty J.

Binchy J.

Meenan J.

Court of Appeal Record No.: 2025/54

High Court Record No.: 2013 2 M

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Settlement agreement – Fraud – Duress – Appellant seeking an order that a settlement agreement entered into between the parties be declared unenforceable – Whether during the course of the negotiations leading to the settlement the appellant had been subjected to duress by her own legal advisors such that the agreement should be set aside

Facts: The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal from a judgment of the High Court (Jordan J) delivered (ex tempore) on 11 December 2024, whereby the High Court judge dismissed the appellant’s motion, which was undated but which was filed on 27 June 2024 whereby the appellant sought a series of reliefs against the respondent, including an order that a settlement agreement entered into between the parties on 18 January 2024 be declared unenforceable. There were five distinct grounds of appeal, which were the main focus of both the written and oral submissions of the appellant. These were as follows: (1) that the High Court judge informed the parties that he was “not of a mind to hear the case” because of its complexity and likely duration, and that he effectively ordered the parties to negotiate and come to an agreement; (2) that the High Court judge erred in failing to make a finding that the respondent had failed to comply with orders made by White J requiring the disclosure of information in particular concerning the liability (if any) of the company from which the business of the parties was conducted to the Revenue Commissioners; (3) that the High Court judge erred in failing to make a finding that the respondent had misled the High Court and/or committed a fraud in claiming that the company had a liability to the Revenue Commissioners in excess of €1.4million, in circumstances where (the appellant contended) the company had no liability to the Revenue Commissioners; (4) that the appellant was medically unfit to partake in the proceedings in January 2024 - it was not contended that the High Court judge erred in that regard, because this issue was not raised before the High Court judge, but rather the appellant relied upon a medical diagnosis that she had received since the hearing in the High Court; and (5) that the High Court judge erred in failing to find that, during the course of the negotiations leading to the settlement, the appellant had been subjected to duress by her own legal advisors such that the settlement agreement should be set aside.

Held by Binchy J that: (1) Jordan J did not say that he was not prepared to hear the case, and nor did he say anything that was open to that interpretation; (2) and (3) the matters about which the appellant complained under these headings were clearly extinguished by the settlement, and it was not open to the appellant to resurrect them and litigate them; (4) this ground was not raised at all in the High Court, the appellant had not sought leave of the Court of Appeal to raise it, there was no evidence at all of the appellant’s state of health at the time of the settlement discussions and if the appellant was as unwell as she claimed at the time of the discussions, she should have sought an adjournment of the proceedings no later than January 2024; and (5) the appellant had failed to identify any error on the part of the High Court judge in his treatment of this issue.

Binchy J dismissed the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

NO FURTHER REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Binchy delivered on the 14 ^th day of July 2025

1 . This is a judgment in an appeal brought by the appellant from a judgment of the High Court (Jordan J.) delivered ( ex tempore) on 11 ^th December 2024, whereby the High Court judge dismissed the appellant's motion, which is undated but which was filed on 27 ^th June 2024 whereby the appellant sought a series of reliefs against the respondent, including an order that a settlement agreement entered into between the parties on 18 ^th January 2024 be declared unenforceable.

2 . There is a very long history to these proceedings, which commenced in the High Court in 2013, and which resulted in a detailed judgment of White J. delivered on 5 ^th November 2014, following a 15-day hearing. Following delivery of that judgment, White J. made a series of orders on 22 ^nd January 2015. The was no appeal brought by either party from the judgment or orders made by White J.

3 . On 1 ^st April 2021, the respondent issued a motion seeking liberty to re-enter the proceedings and seeking orders, inter alia, requiring the appellant to take certain steps arising out the orders of the High Court of 22 ^nd January 2015. That motion was initially returnable for 1 ^st November 2021.

4 . On 19 ^th April 2023, the appellant issued a notice of motion returnable for 8 ^th May 2023, seeking, inter alia, the re-entry of the proceedings, the re-hearing of certain matters, and the variation of various orders making proper provision for the respondent. This motion was grounded upon an affidavit of the appellant of 19 ^th April 2023 in which she claimed that White J. had been misled by the respondent in a key respect, viz. that the company from which the business of the parties was conducted had a tax liability of €1,422,476. The appellant claims that this is was untrue, and that as a result a gross injustice had been visited upon her, because, and without getting into the details of the proceedings before White J., the respondent was assuming the liabilities of owed by the company to the Revenue Commissioners, and this was taken into account by White J. in the orders that he made as to proper provision for the parties. So obviously therefore, if there was no such liability, the respondent stood to benefit by this amount.

5 . The appellant further claimed that the respondent had failed to produce documentation relating to this liability as directed by the Court at the time. Both motions ultimately came on for hearing before the High Court, Jordan J. on 16 ^th January 2024. At this time, the appellant was represented by solicitors and counsel, as she had been previously when the substantive proceedings came on for hearing before White J. in 2014.

6 . When the motions came on for hearing on 16 ^th January 2024, following some preliminary exchanges with the High Court judge, counsel for the appellant asked the judge for some time to facilitate discussions between the parties, and Jordan J. acceded to the request. Although the appellant does not accept that these discussions resulted in a settlement, terms of settlement were in fact written up and signed by the parties on that date but that agreement could not be ruled by the Court because of an issue that required to be clarified in relation to the discharge of mortgages over the former family home of the parties, which pursuant to the orders made by White J., was to be transferred to the appellant, with the respondent to be liable for the discharge of the mortgage liabilities. However, while that issue was being resolved, the appellant expressed to her legal team her deep unhappiness with the settlement. This led to further negotiations and the conclusion of another settlement agreement on 18 ^th January 2024, which was ruled by the Court the same day, in the presence of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant, when handing up the terms of settlement to the Court, described the terms as being an improvement on the existing orders. The final terms of settlement incorporated a number of hand-written amendments to the typed version of the agreement of 16 ^th January, and these amendments were initialled by both parties. Jordan J. described the terms as being both sensible and fair, and commended the parties for their efforts.

7 . However, notwithstanding having executed the terms of the settlement agreement, and being present in Court when the same were ruled and reflected in orders made by the Court, the appellant claims that she remained unhappy and only agreed to the term of settlement under extreme duress from her own legal team, who, she claims, informed her that they would not represent her further if she declined the terms on offer. Importantly, at the hearing of this appeal, in answer to a question from the Court, the appellant confirmed that she does not claim that the respondent or his legal team had any awareness of the duress she claims she was put under by her own legal advisors. However, she does claim that the following day she wrote to the High Court registrar in order to bring to the attention of Jordan J. that she had signed the settlement agreement of 18 ^th January 2024 under duress from her own legal representatives.

8 . On 23 ^rd February 2024, the appellant sent a lengthy email to the solicitor acting on behalf of the respondent informing him, inter alia, that she was not a willing party to any agreement signed between 16 ^th and 18 ^th January 2024 and that the “ state of play” of the proceedings was that subsisting prior to the commencement of negotiations on 16 ^th January 2024. In the same letter the appellant made a series of further demands of the respondent in order to resolve matters. Unsurprisingly in the circumstances, there were no further negotiations.

9 . The appellant's former solicitors filed an application to come off record on 27 ^th February 2024, and the appellant has represented herself in the proceedings ever since. At the hearing of this appeal the appellant represented herself skilfully and with utmost courtesy, and demonstrated a keen understanding of the issues to be decided by the Court.

Appellant's Motion to Set Aside the...