Allied Irish Banks & Anor. v McKeown & Anor. No. 2 (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses a Notice of Motion filed by the Defendants seeking multiple orders related to a prior Court Order dated 18th May 2017, made by a judge in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendants challenge the standing and enforcement of this Order, alleging misconduct and procedural irregularities by the Plaintiffs and associated parties. The Defendants seek to strike out a motion brought by one Plaintiff entity, have certain papers referred to prosecutorial authorities, set aside the May 2017 Order as irredeemable, and obtain orders concerning property ownership and registration. The Court had previously issued a separate judgment on the motion brought by one Plaintiff entity, which overlaps significantly with the current motion. This judgment addresses the Defendants’ motion and related procedural matters.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should strike out or dismiss the motion brought by one Plaintiff entity due to alleged procedural defects and misconduct.
2. Whether the Court should direct referral of the motion papers and related documents to prosecutorial authorities such as the Director of Public Prosecutions and Interpol.
3. Whether the Court should set aside the prior Order of 18th May 2017 on grounds including alleged irredeemability and fraud.
4. Whether the Court should order the return of properties to the Defendants and direct actions against the Property Registration Authority regarding registration and charges.
5. Whether the Defendants are entitled to summary compensation in lieu of costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

• The motion brought by one Plaintiff entity should be struck out because that entity was not properly entered as a co-Plaintiff in the case title, rendering its motion legally defective.
• The Plaintiff entity engaged in abuse of Court process by acting on a Court Order prior to its determination and concealed its intent to sell private properties without lawful authority.
• The Defendants allege criminal contempt and various statutory breaches by the Plaintiff entity and its agents, including fraudulent sales and withholding of information.
• The Defendants request the Court to refer the motion papers to prosecutorial authorities for investigation of alleged criminal conduct.
• The Defendants assert that the prior Court Order is irredeemable due to refusal by the Plaintiffs to accept payment demands, thus rendering the Order unenforceable and a clog on equity of redemption.
• The Defendants seek an order for the return of their properties, alleging that no lawful debt is owed.
• The Defendants request orders against the Property Registration Authority to prevent registration of fraudulent sales and to remove charges related to the Plaintiffs.
• The Defendants claim entitlement to summary compensation in lieu of costs.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Court should not strike out or dismiss the motion brought by the Plaintiff entity, which was properly granted in previous judgment.
• The Defendants have been notified of sums due and have failed to pay, despite correspondence providing redemption figures.
• The joint and several liability of the Defendants for the debt is properly reflected in the prior Court Order and is not fraudulent or improper.
• The Defendants’ allegations of fraud and misconduct are unfounded and based on misunderstandings or groundless assertions.
• No persuasive evidence supports the Defendants’ claim that the Plaintiff entity or its agents acted unlawfully in relation to property sales or debt enforcement.
• The reliefs sought against the Property Registration Authority are inappropriate in summary proceedings and lack evidential basis, especially as the Authority was not notified of the application.
• Summary compensation in lieu of costs is not warranted given the refusal of the Defendants’ reliefs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first addressed the Defendants’ request to strike out the Plaintiff entity’s motion, noting that it had already granted that motion in prior judgment and therefore refused to strike it out or dismiss it. Regarding the requests to refer papers to prosecutorial authorities, the Court declined, reasoning that the Defendants were already in possession of the relevant materials and had indicated their intent to make such referrals themselves. The Court also emphasized procedural fairness, noting that many parties implicated by the Defendants were not before the Court and had not been given an opportunity to respond.

On the issue of setting aside the May 2017 Order, the Court found that the Defendants’ claims that the Order was irredeemable were unsupported by evidence. The Court clarified the legal principle of joint and several liability, rejecting the Defendants’ characterization of the Order as fraudulent or improper. The Court further held that arguments attempting to revisit or re-litigate the original Order were impermissible, especially as they were not raised at the proper time.

The Court rejected the Defendants’ request to order the return of properties, finding no persuasive evidence that no debt was owed or that the properties should be returned. The Court observed that proceeds from property sales had been applied to reduce the Defendants’ liabilities. The Court also declined to make orders against the Property Registration Authority, citing procedural impropriety in the lack of notice and absence of evidential basis.

Finally, the Court noted that since all reliefs sought by the Defendants were refused, there was no basis for summary compensation in lieu of costs. The Court indicated it had carefully considered all affidavits, written submissions, and oral arguments in reaching its conclusions.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED ALL RELIEFS sought by the Defendants in their Notice of Motion. Specifically, the Court:

• Denied the request to strike out or dismiss the Plaintiff entity’s motion, which had already been granted.
• Declined to refer motion papers to prosecutorial authorities, leaving such referrals to the Defendants themselves.
• Rejected the setting aside of the prior Order of 18th May 2017, affirming its validity and enforceability.
• Denied orders for the return of properties and for intervention against the Property Registration Authority due to lack of evidential support and procedural deficiencies.
• Did not grant summary compensation in lieu of costs to the Defendants.

The decision directly affects the parties by maintaining the status quo of the prior Court Order and related proceedings. The Court’s refusal to revisit settled matters underscores the importance of timely and procedurally proper challenges. No new legal precedent was established by this judgment.