The High Court has dismissed Anne McGuire’s €1.25 million claim against Ulster Bank Ireland Limited, finding it frivolous and vexatious and bound to fail. Mr Justice Noonan delivered the judgment on 7 December 2018.
McGuire brought the claim in 2016, representing herself. She alleged that the bank breached the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears, improperly brought two possession cases, and failed to engage meaningfully with her about her debts. She claimed those actions caused depression, panic attacks, anxiety and sleep difficulties, affected her work and rental income, and damaged her reputation. She sought €1.25 million, punitive damages and special damages to be assessed.
The dispute followed two loans from First Active Plc, Ulster Bank’s predecessor. The court recorded that a €120,000 facility was granted in February 2004 and secured by a mortgage over 17 Station Court, Ennis. A further €212,000 facility was granted in August 2006, with 21 Rathban, Tulla Road, Ennis identified as security. The funds were drawn down and the loans were not repaid. The bank demanded payment in January 2011.
The bank later brought Circuit Court possession proceedings concerning both properties. The case relating to 21 Rathban was struck out in September 2015 because the bank’s proofs were not in order. The case concerning 17 Station Court was struck out in April 2016. The bank said that happened because the property was not McGuire’s principal private residence, raising a jurisdiction issue; McGuire attributed it to non-compliance with an earlier court order.
Justice Noonan treated malicious prosecution as the only recognised legal basis apparent for a claim based on having been unsuccessfully sued. He concluded that the pleadings and affidavit material did not support such a claim. The loan documents identified 21 Rathban as security, while the bank produced a copy of an executed mortgage relating to 17 Station Court. The judge said a failure of proofs resulting in dismissal did not, by itself, establish that proceedings were brought without reasonable or probable cause, and found no pleaded evidence of malice.
The judgment also found that reputational harm from being sued was not legally actionable on the pleaded basis; that the personal injuries claim lacked the required authorisation and form of summons; and that the rental-income allegation lacked particulars. The mortgage-arrears code did not give rise to a common-law cause of action, and the complaint about telephone transcripts did not plead damage from the alleged failure to provide them.
The court ruled the claim frivolous and vexatious and separately bound to fail, and said it would dismiss the action. The judgment does not record a separate damages award or other order.