The High Court has struck out Patrick Harrold’s claim against Nua Mortgages Limited, finding that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was bound to fail. The decision was made on the lender’s application under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts; the court did not determine a trial of the underlying dispute.
The claim arose from a €256,500 loan facility offered to Harrold and his wife in June 2007 for a 40-year term. The loan was secured on a property at Middle Drumrooske, Donegal Town, County Donegal. After Harrold fell into arrears, joint receivers were appointed over the property in October 2012.
Harrold sought €1 million in damages and a declaration that the mortgage was void. He alleged, among other things, reckless lending, coercion, misrepresentation, insolvency and breaches of regulatory requirements. He also argued that the lender had created the loan money “out of thin air” and that securitisation affected the repayment obligation. These were claims advanced by Harrold, not findings by the court.
The lender argued that the claims were legally untenable or insufficiently particularised. Harrold opposed the application, saying his allegations had been set out in replies to particulars and that, as a litigant in person, he should receive latitude. He also relied on arguments about negligence, contributory negligence, fraud and statutory-code breaches.
The court held that Irish law did not recognise a tort of reckless lending and rejected the “creation of currency” argument as frivolous and bound to fail. It also found that the securitisation and broad allegations about banks’ lending practices did not provide a reasonable cause of action in this case. The court said the decision in a separate Supreme Court case about contributory negligence did not justify allowing Harrold’s claim to proceed, noting differences in the security and risk assessment evidence described in that case.
On alleged coercion or inducement, the court found no credible evidence had been brought to its attention and said the pleadings could not be amended to fix that part of the claim. It acknowledged that strike-out powers should be used cautiously, particularly for litigants in person, but concluded that this claim was bound to fail. The judgment struck out the claim; it did not make a separate order declaring the mortgage void or award damages.