The High Court dismissed most claims brought by Angela and Patrick McMahon against Bank of Scotland plc over the appointment of a receiver to their properties, finding those claims frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process and bound to fail. It allowed them to amend their claim about one property in Ballyjamesduff, Co Cavan, and made an Isaac Wunder order restricting new proceedings related to the properties and borrowings.
The McMahons, who represented themselves, sought damages connected with a receiver’s appointment over five investment properties. Their claims included challenges based on the loans’ securitisation, a cross-border merger and the bank’s registration of its interest in the properties. The court said similar arguments had already been rejected in other cases. It also found that the McMahons had produced no allegation or evidence identifying a specific unfair loan term, and no evidence to support serious allegations they made against the bank’s lawyers.
During the hearing, the bank disclosed that interest on loan account -504 had been charged at 1.45 percentage points above the European Central Bank rate, instead of the agreed 1.05 points. The bank’s recalculation showed that the account would not have been in arrears when the demand was made or when the receiver was appointed over the Ballyjamesduff property. The bank therefore stopped seeking dismissal of the claim concerning that appointment and consented to an amendment. It maintained that the receiver was nevertheless validly appointed, including on cross-securitisation grounds, and said it would contest the claim at a full hearing.
The judge permitted the McMahons to amend their statement of claim to argue that the receiver was not validly appointed because the loan was not in arrears at the relevant dates. The judgment did not decide that issue. The court dismissed the remaining action and rejected the McMahons’ application to amend other claims or add Tanager Limited as a co-defendant.
The court also ordered that the McMahons may not commence new proceedings directly or indirectly concerning the properties or borrowings without prior written leave from the President of the High Court or a judge nominated by him. The order does not prevent an appeal against this judgment or pursuit of the permitted Ballyjamesduff claim.