No evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation prior to settlement agreement

Commercial – Plaintiff alleges that he signed a settlement agreement on foot of a fraudulent misrepresentation - enforcement of a guarantee - loan by Defendant to a company set up by the Plaintiff for the purpose of the purchase of loans from Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited – claimed that Defendant represented that the company had not settled the claim that it had against IBRC for the return of the deposit - because of that misrepresentation he entered into the settlement agreement in order to regain control of the company and pursue that claim against IBRC - plaintiff discharged his obligations under his guarantee of obligations to Defendant by paying, inter alia, some €2.4 million, plus interests and costs – argued that the payment made the plaintiff under that settlement agreement in relation to the deposit should be reduced by the payment made by IBRC under its settlement with the company in relation to the deposit - the claim of misrepresentation is made under English law – not a case concerning concurrent wrongdoers – s. 17 of Civil Liability Act, 1961 - provision relied upon by Plaintiff not applicable - applicability of Isaac Wunder orders to all litigants – factual background - deposit for loan sale deed lent by defendant - facility agreement - loan sale deed did not proceed - uncontroverted evidence that plaintiff’s lawyer was aware of the redemption – defendants demands for return of the deposit – settlement negotiations – defendant obtained judgment on foot of the guarantee – settlement agreement – correspondence - alleged misrepresentation – further correspondence – settlement agreement executed – proceedings issued – misrepresentation in English law - not a direct misrepresentation - implied misrepresentation – not acting as solicitor – meaning of emails if read in isolation – reduction in transaction price – reduction in invoices – reduction in costs – part payment – discrepancies in emails – failure to read emails and attachments - no question of fraudulent misrepresentation - fraudulent misrepresentation claimed against a solicitor without expert opinion – civil liability act claim – no concurrent wrongdoer – plaintiff’s “outrageous” litigation - habitually vexatious litigant - commercial court litigation is not exempt from Isaac Wunder orders - no public register of Isaac Wunder Orders - no application has been made by any party for an Isaac Wunder.