Appeals dismissed where they amount to a collateral attack on a consent summary judgment

Court of Appeal - appeal against Order 17, rule 4 RSC - substituting respondent for AIB in proceedings - also appeal against refusal of President to set judgment aside - consent had been given to orders - documents had to be executed - appellant shareholder and director in company - 5th June, 2008 - appellant furnished personal guarantee in respect of borrowings - 20th August, 2009 - facilities agreement - security over properties and folios - guarantee up to €24,970,000 - 17th June, 2014 - demand served on company - 18th June, 2014 - demand served on fourth appellant - 3rd November, 2015 - AIB issued summary proceedings - 17th December, 2015 - listed for judgment in High Court, charge executed in favour of solicitors - summary judgment on consent against him - 7th January, 2016 - judgment registered as judgment mortgage against his interests in certain folios - 19th January, 2016 - registration for charge lodged - March 2016 - registration completed - 9th December, 2019 - mediation process - 31st January, 2020 - settlement agreement signed - 6th February, 2020 - notice of motion seeking declaration security was equitable mortgage - 14th April, 2023 - judgment delivered - whether fourth defendant allowed to resile from agreement and withdraw consents - consented to orders under settlement agreement - June 2020 - solicitors come off record - 6th July, 2020 - first attempts to withdraw consent - also says 3rd May, 2011 wasn't an equitable mortgage - says not represented properly, equality of arms - no misconduct from legal advisors - unmeritorious - not advanced during hearing either - alleging discharged in full - no evidence of impropriety in amount - attack on the judgment and order - not permissible - same about argument contesting validity of order - balance of probabilities standard met - not established either that there wasn't a settlement agreement - equitable mortgage presumption not rebutted - no basis for granting of well charging order either - section 117(2) of 2009 Act mentioned - letter not superseded by subsequent agreement either - challenge to appointment of receivers - no basis for overturning established - issues not advanced before High Court - no fundamental issue advanced - fraud and deceit not established either - falls short of jurisprudence test - hasn't demonstrated "strong reasons" - collateral attack - no constitutional basis - Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015 - section 169 - costs to the respondent in respect of one appeal - can contact Court of Appeal office within seven days.