Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff commenced proceedings by Plenary Summons on 13 January 2023 against nine Defendants, seeking damages, removal of liens from a specific Land Registry folio, indemnification against future third party claims, and aggregated damages. The Plaintiff’s claims were based on allegations including gross negligence, misrepresentation, breach of statutory duty, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and deceit. The Defendants filed a motion on 31 March 2023 to strike out the proceedings on grounds of frivolity, vexatiousness, failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, abuse of process, and res judicata.
The proceedings were struck out as against the second to ninth Defendants by an earlier order, leaving the first named Defendant’s motion for determination by Ms. Justice Jackson. There was also an extant Plaintiff’s motion for discovery, the outcome of which depended on the resolution of the current strike out application.
The Plaintiff alleges that the first named Defendant falsely claimed ownership of the Plaintiff’s mortgage, asserting that the mortgage was sold to a third party and that the Defendant concealed this fact. The Plaintiff disputes the Defendant’s entitlement to enforce the security on the mortgage.
The dispute has a lengthy procedural history, including possession proceedings initiated in 2014 in the Circuit Court, an Order for Possession granted in 2019, an unsuccessful appeal to this Court, and a refused leave to appeal by the Supreme Court in 2021. An Execution Order of Possession was issued in October 2022 but was stayed pending these proceedings.
Affidavits and evidence were filed by both parties, including affidavits from representatives of the first named Defendant and multiple affidavits by the Plaintiff. The Defendant contends that the issues raised in the current proceedings are essentially identical to those previously litigated and determined in prior possession proceedings and related appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff’s current proceedings disclose a reasonable cause of action or are frivolous and vexatious.
- Whether the current proceedings constitute an abuse of process by improperly re-litigating issues already determined by the Circuit, High, and Supreme Courts.
- Whether the proceedings are barred by the principles of finality, res judicata, and the rule in Henderson v. Henderson.
- Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the proceedings as bound to fail.
Arguments of the Parties
First Named Defendant's Arguments
- The Plaintiff’s claims are an improper collateral attack on the finality of possession proceedings previously determined by multiple courts.
- The Plaintiff’s allegations are frivolous, vexatious, and amount to an abuse of process.
- The entitlement of the first named Defendant to enforce the mortgage security has been conclusively determined by the Circuit Court, High Court on appeal, and the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- The proceedings should be struck out pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28, Order 19 Rule 27, and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
- The principles of finality, res judicata, and the rule in Henderson v. Henderson prevent re-litigation of matters already decided.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff disputes that the first named Defendant owns or is entitled to enforce the mortgage, asserting that the loan was sold to a third party prior to the Defendant’s acquisition of the original lender.
- The Plaintiff has raised these issues repeatedly in previous possession proceedings, before the County Registrar, Circuit Court, High Court, and in applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
- The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to produce documentation as directed during possession proceedings.
- The Plaintiff continues to assert grievances regarding ownership and enforcement rights despite previous adverse rulings.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Henderson v. Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 |
Rule preventing re-litigation of issues that could have been raised in earlier proceedings; promotes finality and prevents abuse of process. |
The Court applied the rule to conclude that the Plaintiff’s claims were an abuse of process as they sought to re-litigate issues already determined by prior courts. |
| Barry v. Buckley [1981] I.R. 306 |
Jurisdiction to strike out proceedings under Order 19 Rule 28 and inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice and abuse of process. |
The Court relied on this precedent to exercise its jurisdiction to strike out proceedings that disclose no reasonable cause of action and are frivolous or vexatious. |
| Fay v. Tegral Pipes Limited [2005] 2 I.R. 261 |
Clarification of principles applicable to striking out pleadings and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. |
The Court applied the principles to assess whether the Plaintiff’s case was legally capable of success and whether the proceedings were an abuse of process. |
| Keary v. PRAI [2022] IEHC 28 |
Guidance on striking out pleadings under Order 19 Rule 28, emphasizing legal incapacity to succeed based on pleadings alone. |
The Court used this authority to assess the pleadings and concluded the Plaintiff’s case was bound to fail as pleaded. |
| Burke and Woolfson v. Beatty [2016] IEHC 353 |
Scope of Order 19 Rule 28 applications focusing solely on the pleadings without examining external evidence. |
The Court adhered to this principle in deciding that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action. |
| Lopes v. Minister for Justice [2014] 2 IR 301 |
Distinction between striking out under procedural rules and inherent jurisdiction; inherent jurisdiction used sparingly to prevent abuse of process. |
The Court considered this distinction and alternatively exercised inherent jurisdiction to strike out the proceedings as bound to fail. |
| Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v. Maloney [2023] IECA 161 |
Clarification of legal title and enforceability of mortgage security; relevance of Tax Appeal Commission Determination. |
The Court referenced this decision to show that the legal title was held by the Defendant and that the Plaintiff’s assertions lacked evidential basis. |
| Start Mortgages DAC v. Ramseyer [2024] IEHC 329 |
Requirements to establish legal title and proofs necessary in possession proceedings. |
The Court distinguished this case as involving ongoing proceedings, whereas the present possession proceedings were final and not to be reopened. |
| Tassan Din v. Banco Ambrosiano S.P.A. [1991] 1 I.R. 569 |
Application of abuse of process principles and finality in litigation. |
The Court relied on this authority to support the conclusion that the Plaintiff’s repeated claims constituted an abuse of process. |
| Kenny v Trinity College Dublin [2008] IESC 18 |
Reiteration that inherent jurisdiction to strike out should be exercised sparingly. |
The Court acknowledged the need for caution in exercising inherent jurisdiction but found it appropriate in the instant case. |
| Sun Fat Chan v Osseous Ltd [1992] 1 I.R. 425 |
Principles on the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process. |
The Court referenced this case to underline the limited and cautious use of inherent jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by identifying the core dispute as the Plaintiff’s challenge to the first named Defendant’s ownership and enforcement rights over the mortgage security registered on the relevant Land Registry folio. The Court emphasized that it was not conducting a substantive hearing on the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims but was tasked solely with determining whether the current proceedings constituted an abuse of process and should be struck out.
Reviewing the procedural history, the Court noted that the identical issues had been fully litigated and determined in prior possession proceedings before the Circuit Court, High Court, and Supreme Court. The Plaintiff had exhausted all appeal rights and had repeatedly raised the same arguments in various forums without success.
The Court applied the principles governing strike out applications under Order 19 Rule 28 and the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings. It accepted the Defendant’s submission that the Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and vexatious, amounting to an abuse of process by seeking to re-litigate matters conclusively decided. The Court referenced established case law, including the rule in Henderson v. Henderson, which bars parties from reopening issues that could have been raised previously.
In analyzing the evidence and affidavits, the Court found no new issues or evidence that would justify reopening the matter. The Plaintiff’s repeated assertions lacked credible factual basis, and the prior judgments confirmed the Defendant’s entitlement to enforce the mortgage.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the proceedings were bound to fail both on the pleadings and on the merits, justifying strike out under procedural rules and inherent jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
The Court GRANTED the first named Defendant’s motion to strike out the proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff’s proceedings against the first named Defendant were struck out in their entirety. The Court ordered that costs should follow the event, entitling the first named Defendant to costs against the Plaintiff, subject to any submissions within a specified timeframe.
This decision effectively puts an end to the Plaintiff’s attempt to litigate the ownership and enforcement issues already conclusively determined in previous possession proceedings. No new precedent was established, as the ruling reinforced existing principles of finality, res judicata, and abuse of process.