The High Court has dismissed James Osborne’s motion to be released from undertakings given to the court in 2018 and to bring new proceedings against KBC Bank Ireland and others.
In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2023, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore found that Osborne had agreed to the undertakings given by barrister Gabriel Reynolds on his behalf. The judge rejected Osborne’s claim that he had not consented to them and found that he understood their meaning and consequences.
The undertakings were given during a 17 April 2018 hearing before Mr Justice McGovern, in proceedings involving Osborne, KBC and receiver Ken Tyrell. They included commitments to discontinue proceedings against Tyrell and not to begin further proceedings against KBC and the receiver in the relevant sequence of events. McGovern J did not make the Isaac Wunder order sought by KBC because the undertakings had been provided.
Osborne argued that Reynolds lacked authority to give the undertakings because a solicitor had not yet entered an appearance for him in KBC’s 2015 proceedings. O’Moore J rejected that argument, finding no basis to conclude that an undertaking given in those circumstances was legally void. The judge also rejected a submission that McGovern J lacked jurisdiction to accept the undertakings because appeals were pending.
Osborne alternatively sought permission to issue proceedings raising four issues. The court refused permission on all four. The proposed challenge to the particulars of KBC’s claim in the 2015 summary proceedings could have been raised in that case, which had been finally determined. A proposed claim concerning a fire safety certificate had already been dismissed in earlier proceedings. The judge also refused permission for a claim about a map attached to a mortgage, finding it could have been raised earlier and that fresh litigation would be vexatious and oppressive.
The final proposed claim concerned Tyrell’s appointment deed describing him as “Receiver” rather than “Receiver and Manager”. The judge said it could have been raised earlier and would be vexatious and oppressive. He also found it was bound to fail, citing prior decisions that had rejected the asserted defect.
O’Moore J dismissed the motion in its entirety. The judgment records the court’s decision on this motion; it does not determine the merits of the proposed new claims through a new trial.