The High Court has adjourned a motion by Rabobank seeking to strike out Francis Dooley’s proceedings, giving him an opportunity to apply to amend his pleadings. The court did not decide the underlying allegations or allow the proposed amendments; it adjourned the motion generally with liberty for Rabobank to re-enter it.
Dooley’s proceedings concern loans and a development in Courtown, Co. Wexford. He alleges that Rabobank, as parent and funder of ACC Bank plc, directed or participated in actions by ACC that he says were wrongful. The judgment records allegations about loan decisions, building works and the bank’s dealings with the development. Those allegations have not been determined in this motion.
Rabobank applied to have the case dismissed, arguing that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action or that the claim was bound to fail. It said the named defendant, “Rabobank Group”, did not exist, that the lending and guarantees were with ACC, and that Dooley’s claims overlapped with a separate case involving ACC Loan Management DAC.
The court found that proceedings against a non-existent defendant were defective, and that the original statement of claim contained serious errors. A draft amended claim still incorrectly attributed to Rabobank loans made by ACC and the appointment of a receiver. The judge also observed that some proposed claims appeared to belong to Dooley’s company and could not be advanced by him personally.
However, the judge refused to dismiss the proceedings under Order 19, rule 28. She held that the proposed claim included a cause of action recognised by law and that, at this stage, the court had to assume the pleaded facts could be proved. The overlap with the ACC case and Dooley’s other proceedings did not, by themselves, make this claim legally deficient or vexatious.
The court also declined to dismiss the case under its inherent jurisdiction. Whether the claim was time-barred could not be decided on this motion without agreed or undisputed facts, and the central allegation that Rabobank induced ACC to breach loan agreements would require oral evidence. The judge stressed that she was not deciding the merits.
Dooley must bring the necessary applications to amend the pleadings and seek substitution of the defendant. Rabobank may oppose them. The judge said that if Dooley does not bring the applications within a short timeframe, or if they are unsuccessful, Rabobank may re-enter its strike-out motion. The motion was adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter.