Geary & anor v Property Registration Authority & ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves two sets of proceedings concerning commercial property in The City. The first set, referred to as "The Receiver Proceedings" (Record No. 2017/6534P), was initiated by a receiver appointed by Company B to enforce certain rights over property owned by the Plaintiffs. These proceedings sought possession and related reliefs and included a timetable for pleadings exchange. The Plaintiffs failed to file a defence by the court-ordered deadline.

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs commenced a second set of proceedings ("The Plaintiffs' Proceedings", Record No. 2018/3000P) against multiple defendants including the receiver, Company B, Company A (the original lender), the Property Registration Authority ("the PRA"), and solicitors acting for Company B and the receiver. Motions were filed by various parties seeking to strike out parts of the second proceedings.

Throughout the process, the Plaintiffs, litigants in person, did not appear at hearings due to the Plaintiff’s deteriorating mental health, supported by medical evidence. Despite this, the Court proceeded with motions due to the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with procedural deadlines and the need to balance justice among all parties.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the second set of proceedings brought by the Plaintiffs constitutes an abuse of court process by duplicating issues already before the Court in the first proceedings.
2. Whether the claims against the solicitors acting for Company B and the receiver have any legal basis.
3. Whether the claims against Company A (the original lender) are bound to fail due to prior lawful transfer of interests and absence of enforcement action.
4. Whether the relief sought against the Property Registration Authority is appropriate, and whether interlocutory or final relief can be granted by motion in these circumstances.
5. The appropriateness of striking out parts or all of the second set of proceedings against the various defendants.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments (Company B, Receiver, Solicitors)

• The second proceedings duplicate issues already raised in the first proceedings, constituting an abuse of process.
• The Plaintiffs failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines to file a defence in the first proceedings.
• The claims against the solicitors are not legally sustainable as they acted as agents on instructions.

Defendant's Arguments (Company A)

• Company A transferred its rights and interests lawfully to Company B in 2015 and never took enforcement action against the Plaintiffs.
• The Plaintiffs’ claims against Company A are an attempt to frustrate the receivership and are without merit.
• The Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the effectiveness of a cross-border merger and entitlement to dispose of mortgage interests have been conclusively decided against them in prior superior court decisions.
• Claims concerning sale to an unregulated entity have been rejected in recent authoritative decisions.
• The motion to strike out is not premature despite the absence of a statement of claim, as the pleadings and affidavits disclose no reasonable cause of action.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Plaintiffs' legal arguments beyond their filings and affidavits, which contain legal terminology but lack cogent legal reasoning.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first identified that the Plaintiffs had failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines in the initial Receiver Proceedings and instead commenced a second set of proceedings raising overlapping issues. Applying the established principle from Henderson v Henderson and related Irish authorities, the Court found this duplication constituted an abuse of process, justifying striking out the second proceedings as against Company B and the receiver.

Regarding the solicitors acting for Company B and the receiver, the Court held that claims against them lacked legal basis as they acted as agents on instructions, consistent with precedent.

The Court considered the arguments against Company A and found them to be bound to fail. Prior superior court decisions had conclusively addressed the validity of the cross-border merger, the transfer of loan interests, and the regulatory status of the transferee entity. The Plaintiffs’ arguments were either previously decided or lacked new substantive content. The Court also rejected the prematurity argument concerning striking out before statement of claim delivery, relying on procedural rules and case law.

As to the relief sought against the PRA, the Court noted that final relief cannot be granted by motion and that interlocutory relief was inappropriate due to absence of evidence of damage, lack of undertaking as to damages, the balance of convenience favoring refusal, and the weak legal basis of the claim. The Court also found that relief against the receiver relating to the receivership duplicated the issues already before the Court.

Balancing the Plaintiffs’ medical condition and absence from court against the need for case progression and fairness to other parties, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the relevant parts of the second proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED the motions to strike out the second set of proceedings as against Company B, the receiver, the solicitors, and Company A (the original lender). The Court REFUSED the relief sought by the Plaintiffs against the Property Registration Authority and struck out the proceedings against it.

The Court ordered that costs follow the event but stayed execution pending determination of the first set of proceedings. Remaining aspects of both sets of proceedings were adjourned to the appropriate list for further progression.

The decision directly affects the parties by removing duplicative and legally unsustainable claims, ensuring procedural compliance and case management. The Court did not establish new legal precedent but applied well-established principles concerning abuse of process, the strike out jurisdiction, and procedural fairness.