Connaughton v Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff was registered as owner of a property recorded in a folio in The City. The Plaintiff had granted a charge over the property to Company A to secure a loan. Company A's interests were transferred ultimately to the Defendant. On 17 February 2023 the Defendant obtained an order for possession in the Circuit Court (Record No.: 2018/0090). The Plaintiff appealed to the High Court (Record No.: 2023/2CA) and the appeal was dismissed by Judge Heslin in an ex tempore judgment ([2023] IEHC 364). An application for discovery was dismissed. The Plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; leave was refused. After exhausting appeals, the Plaintiff issued plenary proceedings seeking to set aside the Circuit Court possession proceedings and related orders. The Defendant moved to strike out the plenary proceedings under Order 19, Rule 28(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The High Court (Judge Mulcahy) heard the strike-out application and delivered judgment on 18 March 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff's plenary claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is an abuse of process because it seeks effectively to re-litigate and set aside final orders made in earlier proceedings.
2. Whether the proceedings are bound to fail by reason of res judicata or the rule in Henderson v Henderson.
3. Whether the Defendant remains a proper party in light of the transfer and assignment of rights to Company B and the substitution of Company B in the underlying possession proceedings.
4. Whether any asserted new grounds (including alleged overcharging, securitisation, assignment notice requirements, GDPR complaints, and alleged breaches of Central Bank or EU consumer protections) justify permitting the plenary proceedings to proceed.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff seeks to set aside the entire Circuit Court possession matter and related notices and orders.
• The Plaintiff contends the summary possession process did not adjudicate the underlying ownership of the loan, compliance with EU consumer law, or substantive factual issues, and thus a plenary hearing is required.
• The Plaintiff alleges multiple grounds (nine pleaded), including contributory negligence by Company A, incorrect application of interest, issues arising from Mars Capital Finance v Temple, defects in the mortgage clause, inconsistencies in documents, loss of legal interest by securitisation, unfair contractual terms, and inconsistent conditions and warranties.
• The Plaintiff contends discovery is required to verify transfers/assignments and chain of title and raises GDPR and Central Bank authorisation concerns.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant submits the plenary proceedings impermissibly seek to challenge final orders and therefore disclose no reasonable cause of action, are abusive, and/or are bound to fail.
• The Defendant states it transferred its rights in the loan and charge to Company B and that Company B has been substituted in the underlying possession proceedings, such that the proceedings against the Defendant are not maintainable.
• The Defendant relies on authorities addressing the threshold for strike out/dismissal and the impermissibility of collateral attacks on final orders.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Mulcahy analysed the matter under Order 19, Rule 28(1) (as substituted) and the established principles governing strike-out and the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. The Court emphasised the high threshold for depriving a party of a trial and the requirement to take the plaintiff's case at its high-water mark. The Court noted the Defendant's contention and affidavit evidence that all rights in the loan and charge had been transferred to Company B and that Company B had been substituted in the possession proceedings; consequently, much of the claim against the Defendant was not maintainable.

The Court reviewed the earlier Circuit Court and High Court determinations, including the High Court's application of the principles for summary possession (citing Bank of Ireland v Cody), and observed that the High Court had concluded the Defendant was the registered owner of the charge, the charge secured the loan monies, and there had been default. The Court held that the Plaintiff's stated purpose—to set aside the possession order—amounted to an impermissible attempt to challenge final orders: a collateral attack barred by the principle articulated in Mullaney v Ireland and the rule in Henderson v Henderson. The two-stage "could and should" test from George and George was applied: the Court found the issues now advanced could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings and that no special circumstances justified their belated pursuit.

The Court addressed specific categories of the Plaintiff's arguments (Central Bank compliance, validity of assignment, Unfair Contract Terms Directive, securitisation, GDPR) and found that these issues had either been considered and rejected in earlier proceedings or were matters that could and should have been raised earlier. The Court noted there was no explanation for the failure to raise them and no special circumstances to excuse that failure. Given these conclusions, the Court determined the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant, were bound to fail, and constituted an abuse of process.

Holding and Implications

STRUCK OUT

Holding: The Court ordered the plenary proceedings struck out pursuant to Order 19, Rule 28(1) on the grounds that the proceedings have no prospect of success, amount to an abuse of process, and are barred by res judicata and/or the rule in Henderson v Henderson.

Implications: The direct effect is the dismissal of the Plaintiff's proceedings against the Defendant. The decision prevents the Plaintiff from re-litigating matters finally determined in the possession proceedings. The Court did not purport to establish new, general precedent beyond applying established authorities. The matter was listed for further ancillary matters and costs on 15 April 2026 at 10:30 am.