McConnon v President of Ireland & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2007, the Plaintiff applied to Company B for a loan of €32 million to fund the construction and completion of a shopping centre located at [Number] Main Street, The City, The State. The loan was approved and advanced pursuant to a letter of facility dated 15th June 2007. The project subsequently encountered difficulties, and the Plaintiff was unable to meet his obligations under the loan.

Company B initiated summary judgment proceedings against the Plaintiff in this court on 30th November 2010. After hearing, the court granted summary judgment in favour of Company B on 4th March 2011, finding no arguable defence or triable issue. The Plaintiff appealed this decision, but the Supreme Court refused a stay on execution of the judgment pending appeal.

Subsequently, on 20th October 2011, the Plaintiff commenced new proceedings against multiple defendants including Company B. The Plaintiff discontinued the claim against the first defendant. Motions were brought to strike out claims against several defendants, and the Plaintiff consented to striking out claims against all but Company B. The present judgment concerns Company B’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s claims against Company B disclose a reasonable cause of action with a prospect of success or should be struck out as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
2. Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to bar the Plaintiff’s claims, given the prior summary judgment and pending appeal.
3. Whether the rule in Henderson v. Henderson precludes the Plaintiff from raising claims that could have been raised in earlier proceedings.
4. Whether the Plaintiff may rely on alleged new evidence not considered in the summary judgment proceedings.
5. Whether any tort of reckless lending exists under Irish law applicable to the Plaintiff’s case.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff claimed Company B acted ultra vires in a fraudulent, negligent, and flagrant disregard of statutory provisions including the Banker Books Evidence Act 1879, National Debt Act 1882, and Savings Bank Act 1893.
• The Plaintiff sought to stay enforcement of the prior judgment and bankruptcy proceedings pending determination of the current claims.
• The Plaintiff alleged misrepresentations by Company B inducing him to enter the loan agreement, rendering the agreement void or releasing him from indebtedness.
• The Plaintiff claimed breaches of fiduciary, contractual duties, duty of care, negligence (including negligent misstatement), and unlawful interference with economic interests.
• The Plaintiff sought damages (general and punitive) and declaratory reliefs based on alleged misrepresentations and breaches.
• The Plaintiff asserted reliance on newly discovered evidence, namely an Executive Summary prepared by Company B officials, which he contended was not considered in the prior summary judgment proceedings.

Defendant's Arguments (Company B)

• Company B contended that many of the Plaintiff’s claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and should be struck out under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
• Company B argued that the claims were barred by res judicata as they had been or should have been raised in the prior summary judgment proceedings.
• Company B relied on the rule in Henderson v. Henderson to assert that the Plaintiff cannot reopen issues that could have been litigated earlier.
• Company B asserted that the alleged new evidence (Executive Summary) was in fact before the court at the summary judgment hearing, albeit late, and thus not truly new evidence.
• Company B denied the existence of a tort of reckless lending under Irish law, citing precedent.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the Plaintiff’s claims in light of procedural rules and established doctrines. It confirmed the court’s inherent jurisdiction and statutory authority to strike out claims that disclose no reasonable cause of action or are an abuse of process. The court found that the prior summary judgment by Birmingham J. was a final and conclusive determination for the purposes of res judicata, notwithstanding the pending appeal to the Supreme Court. The court relied on persuasive authorities from England, Northern Ireland, and Irish precedent to support this conclusion.

The court applied the rule in Henderson v. Henderson to bar claims that could have been but were not raised in the summary judgment proceedings, treating such claims as an abuse of process. The court found that the Plaintiff’s allegations of misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary and contractual duties, negligence, and other claims were either previously adjudicated or could have been raised earlier, thus falling within the scope of res judicata.

Regarding the alleged new evidence (the Executive Summary), the court concluded that this document was in fact before the court at the time of the summary judgment hearing, albeit late, and therefore was not new evidence warranting reconsideration. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the document was not properly ventilated did not suffice to treat it as new evidence.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of a tort of reckless lending, following the reasoning in ICS Building Society v. Grant that such a tort does not exist under Irish law.

Finally, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims seeking ultra vires declarations based on statutory provisions, finding no legal or factual basis for such reliefs.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is to DISMISS all claims brought by the Plaintiff against Company B, both in the plenary summons and the statement of claim.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s attempt to relitigate issues already decided or that could have been raised earlier is barred. The court’s ruling enforces the principles of finality and judicial economy by applying res judicata and the rule in Henderson v. Henderson. No new legal precedent is established; rather, the decision reaffirms established doctrines to prevent abuse of court process and to ensure that litigation is confined to genuine disputes properly presented.