The High Court struck out Jerry Beades’ claim against two receivers and ordered the removal of a lis pendens registered against a house in Finglas, after finding that the proceedings against the receiver with power to sell the property were not being prosecuted bona fide. It refused Beades’ applications to stay both orders.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 28 May 2019, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor dealt with applications brought by the second and third defendants, receivers appointed by Ulster Bank Ireland Limited. The bank itself was not seeking relief in the motion.
The dispute concerned 106 McKee Road, Finglas, which Beades had mortgaged to the bank in 2006. The judgment records that the bank appointed the receivers in 2013, and that one later resigned. The remaining receiver, Declan Taite, had agreed to sell the house to a couple who were renting elsewhere, but the sale could not close while the lis pendens remained registered.
The receivers sought to strike out Beades’ claim against them and to have the lis pendens vacated. The judgment summarised his pleaded grounds as including an alleged lack of proper demand for repayment, the use of a facility letter dated 20 May 2010 that the receivers acknowledged did not exist, and complaints about the bank’s treatment of him.
The judge said Beades’ statement of claim did not set out a specific claim against the receivers, including any properly particularised allegation of breach of fiduciary duty. He held that the claim against them disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious. He also concluded that, even if an amendment might have identified a stateable claim, Beades was bound to fail on the pleaded case and affidavit evidence. The judgment noted that no amendment had been sought.
The court vacated the lis pendens, finding that the proceedings against Taite, who held the power of sale, were not being prosecuted bona fide for the purposes of the relevant provision of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. The judge said the question of who owned the loan was not a factor in deciding the applications. He also noted that Beades could pursue claims against the bank, and potentially a properly articulated claim against the receivers, in other proceedings.
O’Connor J refused a stay of the order vacating the lis pendens, saying damages would be an adequate remedy if Beades later succeeded against Taite and citing the involvement of an innocent third party. He also refused a stay of the order requiring Beades to pay the costs of the application. The supplied judgment extract ends during the court’s discussion of costs.