Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff initiated proceedings by Plenary Summons dated 29 October 2019 against multiple defendants, including Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company ("Start") and AB Wolfe Solicitors ("AB Wolfe"). The case concerns a mortgage originally granted by Bank of Scotland PLC in 2004, secured by lands in County Kildare. The mortgage was transferred to Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited in 2004, which merged back into Bank of Scotland PLC in 2010. The Plaintiff defaulted on the loan, leading to possession proceedings issued by Bank of Scotland PLC in 2014. The mortgage and loan were subsequently assigned to Start in 2015, who was substituted as plaintiff in the possession proceedings. The Circuit Court granted an Order for Possession in favor of Start in October 2016, which the Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to vacate and did not appeal. An Execution Order of Possession was issued in September 2019.
The Plaintiff’s current proceedings allege various breaches by Start and AB Wolfe, including breaches of statutory duty, negligence, and violations of constitutional and EU law, particularly concerning the validity of the cross-border merger regulations and data protection. The defendants, Start and AB Wolfe, applied to strike out these proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, lacking a reasonable cause of action, and bound to fail. The Plaintiff did not attend court hearings and did not file a replying affidavit.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff’s pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action against Start and AB Wolfe.
- Whether the Court should strike out the proceedings under Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or the Court's inherent jurisdiction as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
- Whether the Plaintiff’s claims challenging the validity of the cross-border merger regulations and the title of Start to the mortgage charge constitute a collateral attack on a final and binding Circuit Court Order.
- Whether the Plaintiff has established any factual basis for claims of unlawful use of private data by Start.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Barry v Buckley [1981] IR 306 |
Principles governing striking out claims under Order 19 Rule 28 and inherent jurisdiction |
Referenced as part of the established principles guiding strike out applications. |
| Salthill Properties Limited v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2009] IEHC 207 |
Principles on striking out claims |
Referenced in summary of applicable principles. |
| Lopes v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2014] IESC 21 |
Principles on strike out jurisdiction |
Referenced in summary of applicable principles. |
| Clarington Developments Limited v HCC International Insurance Company plc [2019] IEHC 630 |
Principles on strike out jurisdiction |
Referenced in summary of applicable principles. |
| Kearney v Bank of Scotland [2020] IECA 92 |
Principles on strike out jurisdiction |
Referenced in summary of applicable principles. |
| Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd & anor v Ireland & anor [2022] IECA 23 |
Recent statement of principles on strike out jurisdiction |
Referenced as recent authoritative statement of principles. |
| McAndrew v Launceston Property Finance DAC & anor [2023] IECA 43 |
Recent statement of principles on strike out jurisdiction |
Referenced as recent authoritative statement of principles. |
| Morrissey v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation [2015] IEHC 200 |
Abuse of process and res judicata principles |
Quoted regarding the prohibition on re-litigating matters and abuse of process. |
| Fox v McDonald [2017] IECA 189 |
Meaning of "frivolous and vexatious" in strike out applications |
Quoted to explain the nature of frivolous proceedings justifying termination. |
| Freeman v Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited [2013] IEHC 371 |
Lawfulness of Cross Border Merger Regulations |
Referenced by defendants as having already determined the lawfulness of the Regulations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court applied established principles governing strike out applications under Order 19 Rule 28 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The threshold for striking out is high, requiring the moving party to show that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action, are frivolous, vexatious, or bound to fail, or that the proceedings constitute an abuse of process.
The Court noted that the Plaintiff's pleadings lack any factual basis supporting the claims against Start and AB Wolfe, consisting primarily of assertions without material facts. The Plaintiff did not oppose the strike out application, did not attend court, and did not seek to amend the pleadings despite the opportunity.
Regarding the claims challenging the validity of the cross-border merger regulations and Start's title to the mortgage charge, the Court found these claims to be collateral attacks on a final and binding Circuit Court Order. The Plaintiff failed to raise these points in earlier possession proceedings, and their belated assertion amounts to an abuse of process. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss such claims.
Concerning the alleged unlawful use of private data by Start, the Court found the pleadings so vague and lacking factual foundation that the claim is frivolous, vexatious, and discloses no reasonable cause of action, constituting an abuse of process.
Finally, the Court observed that AB Wolfe, as solicitors acting on instructions for Start, have no disclosed basis for liability beyond their professional role.
Holding and Implications
The Court STRUCK OUT the Plaintiff's proceedings against Start Mortgages DAC and AB Wolfe Solicitors pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
The direct effect is the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against these defendants for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action and abuse of process. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.