The High Court has dismissed two of Gerard Byrne’s proceedings against Mars Capital Ireland DAC and struck out most of a third, leaving a limited claim about the administration of a mortgage account to continue.
In a judgment delivered on 16 June 2023, Ms Justice Siobhán Stack considered applications to dismiss three proceedings brought over loans secured on Property B. Mars Capital and the other defendants argued that the claims were frivolous or vexatious, disclosed no cause of action or were bound to fail.
The court found that claims based on alleged misrepresentations by an Irish National Building Society branch manager in 2006 were statute-barred. Byrne alleged he was told he could later change an interest-only, residential-investment loan to a home mortgage. The written offer described the property as an investment and said it was not intended as a principal private residence. The judge did not decide whether fraud occurred: she said that could only be determined after a full hearing.
The judge found Byrne knew by July 2009 that the lender would not change the loan terms, and had instructed a solicitor to complain. She concluded that the six-year limitation period had expired by July 2015. Later documents about the loan application, she said, were evidence relating to the alleged fraud rather than discovery of a new claim.
The second proceeding challenged aspects of a 2018 settlement of repossession proceedings. The settlement provided for Property A to be sold, €314,214.91 of debt to be written off, and earlier proceedings to be discontinued. The court dismissed the claim, finding no stateable loss from the discontinued cases or alleged credit-rating impact, and no purpose in granting a declaration about costs orders that had since been vacated. It also held that consumer-protection provisions relied on by Byrne did not apply to settlement negotiations in repossession litigation.
In the third proceeding, the court struck out claims against ten individual Mars Capital defendants, finding no adequately pleaded basis for personal liability. It also struck out claims concerning the 2006 mortgage, alleged refusal to investigate fraud and data-protection complaints. The judge said the pleadings did not identify a present claim for relief over the data requests.
A claim concerning alleged incorrect interest calculations and capitalisation of arrears was allowed to remain. Mars Capital had made adjustments to the account, but the judge said it was unclear whether they covered the full period, including before the loan transferred to Mars Capital. The claim could affect the balance due, though the court made no finding on the amount owed or the merits of the alleged maladministration.
The court dismissed the first and second proceedings in full. In the third, it preserved specified paragraphs concerning account administration, directed Byrne to file an amended statement of claim with an appropriate claim for relief, and said the matter would return for costs and an application for an Isaac Wunder order.