The High Court struck out specified parts of Rolf Kane’s claim against Tanager Designated Activity Company and Bank of Scotland plc in a dispute concerning loans secured on his home in Clonsilla and a buy-to-let property at Warrenstown.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 13 December 2019, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor ruled that the latest amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action for certain declarations under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He also used the court’s inherent jurisdiction to strike out further reliefs.
The court said prior Supreme Court and High Court decisions made most of Kane’s pleaded grounds unreasonable and unable to disclose a subsisting cause of action against the two defendants. The judge separately considered the effect of a Court of Appeal judgment concerning Tanager’s entitlement to registration as owner. He said that judgment had determined the point Kane sought to raise and was binding on the High Court.
The court described one requested declaration as incoherent and said the challenged transfer from Bank of Scotland to Tanager was not a transaction with Kane. On data privacy reliefs, the judge said Kane had not identified the data allegedly obtained or the prospective unlawful processing, despite an opportunity to provide particulars. The judgment also records that he did not deny giving consent to the original lender when arranging the loan and security. The court said he had not identified loss or damage to support a damages award.
The order was limited to claims against the second and third defendants, and to reliefs at paragraphs 17(p), (q), (r) and (u) of the latest amended statement of claim. The judgment also refers to declarations at paragraphs 17(l) to (o) when finding no reasonable cause of action. The court directed Kane to pay the second and third defendants’ costs, subject to assessment if the parties could not agree.
The Property Registration Authority and the Attorney General were the first and fourth defendants. The judge said they had not been given an opportunity to address whether a case could be made against them, and that his ex tempore judgment had not dealt with those issues. He gave them liberty to issue motions so the applications could be managed and heard efficiently. The judgment did not strike out Kane’s claims against those two defendants.