The Court of Appeal dismissed four appeals arising from disputes between ACC Bank and borrowers Aidan Cunniffe, Rita Cunniffe and John Lawless. In a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Whelan on 13 October 2017, the court upheld the challenged orders, while clarifying the limits of the relief granted in each matter.
In the first appeal, John Lawless challenged a High Court decision correcting an earlier order under the “slip rule”. The original order had stated a specific amount due on the bank’s judgment debt but omitted the judge’s direction that any sums already received in reduction of the debt should be credited. The Court of Appeal held that the correction properly reflected that direction. It stressed that neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court had determined what amount should be credited, and rejected Lawless’s argument that the remittal allowed a wider inquiry into the receiver’s sale of mortgaged land. The appeal was dismissed.
The second appeal concerned a request for a VAT invoice for receiver Kieran Wallace’s professional fees, which the borrowers said amounted to €405,000. They also sought interest, damages to be assessed and costs. The court concluded that the receiver’s services were supplied to the bank, which appointed and controlled him, and that the borrowers were not the recipients of those services for VAT purposes. It upheld refusal of the requested invoice and related relief. The judgment did not decide whether the borrowers could seek to reclaim VAT from the Revenue Commissioners; it addressed only the specific orders sought in the motion.
The third appeal concerned the striking out of proceedings brought by the borrowers. The Court of Appeal found the High Court had not been entitled to strike out the claim under Order 19, rule 28 on the basis that the statement of claim itself disclosed no reasonable cause of action. However, it upheld the result under the High Court’s separate inherent jurisdiction, finding that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process, including because they repeated matters raised or which could have been raised in earlier litigation. That appeal was dismissed.
The fourth appeal challenged an order requiring the appellants to obtain leave before bringing further proceedings concerning specified aspects of the bank’s loan, receiver appointment and property sales. The Court of Appeal concluded that the history of repeated litigation and the continued pursuit of issues already addressed justified the restriction. It dismissed that appeal too. The restriction remained subject to the High Court’s leave, and the judgment did not bar proceedings already under way or appeals already brought.