Larkin v Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant (the first-named defendant) appealed against an order of Judge Quinn dated 2 April 2025 in the Circuit Court (South-Eastern Circuit, County Wexford). Company C (the plaintiff's predecessor) issued 2014 possession proceedings based on an affidavit sworn by Person Keshwala, described as a "Credit Control Analyst". Between April 2014 and May 2018 Company A acquired the loan and was substituted as plaintiff. An earlier Circuit Court order permitted cross-examination of Person Keshwala; Company A said the deponent could not be located. The Applicant sought various reliefs in the Circuit Court including contempt, dismissal, an Isaac Wunder order and criminal referrals. Company A obtained a strike-out at a County Registrar hearing; that was reviewed and litigation proceeded through the Circuit Court, the High Court (Judge Jackson), an unsuccessful attempt to bring the matter to the Court of Appeal, and a Supreme Court determination dated 10 December 2024 declining leave to appeal. By order dated 24 October 2025 Judge Quinn substituted Company B as plaintiff by reason of an alleged assignment; the present judgment offers no view on that assignment, which the court said is a matter for trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether this Court should interfere with Judge Quinn's refusal of the Applicant's first motion seeking, among other things, orders to attach Company D and named officials to the proceedings.
2. Whether the Applicant was entitled to judgment for an asserted invoice of costs/expenses without taxation or adjudication (second motion).
3. Whether interlocutory relief sought in the third motion remained live and required determination.
4. Whether the Circuit Court proceedings should be struck out at this stage under the equivalent of Order 19, rule 28 (fourth motion).
5. What costs order should follow given the respondent's success on the appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant sought multiple forms of relief across four motions: (i) attaching Company D and named officials to the proceedings and related criminal referrals; (ii) judgment for an invoice of €34,711.90 and recusal of Person Burke; (iii) interlocutory relief pending prior appeals; (iv) striking out/dismissing the Circuit Court proceedings for want of prosecution, lack of proof and alleged collusion between Company A and Company D, together with an Isaac Wunder order and referral to prosecuting authorities.
• The Applicant relied on perceived deficiencies in the affidavit of Person Keshwala and on the history of discontinuance of earlier proceedings to justify immediate determination or dismissal of the later proceedings.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent (Company A) opposed the motions, contending procedural impropriety (e.g. no proper rule invoked for joining third parties or committal), absence of evidential vouching, and that costs/expenses had not been taxed or adjudicated.
• The Respondent submitted that certain motions were no longer live and that striking out the action without a merits hearing was inappropriate given the discontinuance (not dismissal) of earlier proceedings and the procedural history permitting the subsequent proceedings to continue.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge O'Higgins addressed each motion sequentially.

• First motion (attach Company D / named officials): the Court found the notice of motion procedurally flawed, marked by wild and unsubstantiated allegations against named third parties, lacked invocation of any applicable rule for attachment or joinder, and was not evidentially vouched. The Court noted the Circuit Court's power (Order 6(4) cited) to add necessary parties but concluded the application was misconceived and declined to interfere with Judge Quinn's refusal.
• Second motion (invoice for costs/expenses): the Court held that judgment for the sums sought was inappropriate because the costs had not been taxed or adjudicated as required; Judge Jackson had not granted appellate costs to the Applicant; the invoice needed amendment or agreement between parties. The appeal of this motion was refused as premature.
• Third motion (interlocutory relief): the Applicant agreed the motion was no longer live; the Court declined to interfere with the Circuit Court order relating to it.
• Fourth motion (strike out under Order 19, rule 28): the Court treated the relief as seeking strike-out under the equivalent rule. It applied established principles (including the cautionary approach in Aer Rianta and related authorities) and found the Applicant had not met the high threshold required to deprive a party of a hearing on the merits. The earlier proceedings had been discontinued (not dismissed), and earlier judicial directions envisaged the subsequent proceedings continuing. The Court therefore refused the relief.
• Costs: applying Little v. The Chief Appeals Officer, the Court concluded the Respondent was "entirely successful" and that the default rule awarding costs to the successful party applied. The Court nevertheless tailored the costs order, reserving to the trial judge only the Respondent's costs of the proceedings and extinguishing any entitlement the Applicant might have to costs of the hearing before this Court, leaving the trial judge to allocate costs for the wider litigation.
• The Court also criticised the Applicant's pleadings and affidavits for containing defamatory and reckless allegations against various named persons and emphasised that such conduct is unacceptable.

Holding and Implications

FINAL RULING: The appeal was refused in respect of the motions before the Court; the Court declined to interfere with Judge Quinn's order refusing the Applicant's motions and refused the substantive reliefs sought in the second and fourth motions. The third motion was treated as no longer live and not interfered with.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Circuit Court's refusals stand and the Applicant obtains no relief from this Court on the matters appealed. The Respondent (Company A) is declared entirely successful for present purposes; the Court ordered that the Respondent's costs be reserved to the trial judge and extinguished any entitlement the Applicant might have to costs of this hearing before Judge O'Higgins. The Court made no new precedent beyond application of established authorities and did not resolve the question of assignment to Company B, which remains for trial.