The High Court has struck out Eamon Carthy’s claim against the solicitors who represented Bank of Ireland in mortgage possession proceedings, finding that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the claim amounted to an abuse of process.
Mr Justice Liam Kennedy ruled on 19 February 2024 that Carthy had not provided particulars to support serious allegations including fraud, deceit, conspiracy and the manufacture of evidence. He dismissed and struck out the claim against the fifth defendant under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and, alternatively, under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court listed the matter for 27 February to address issues arising from the judgment, including legal costs.
The claim challenged earlier Circuit Court and High Court decisions in proceedings brought by the bank against Carthy and his wife over a loan secured by a mortgage on a property. Those proceedings resulted in a possession order in 2017. After the wife sought to have it vacated, the Circuit Court reaffirmed the order in 2019; the High Court dismissed her appeal in 2020.
Carthy alleged that the bank and its representatives had misled the courts, including through a valuation certificate and figures used to calculate the debt. The judge said the borrowers had opportunities in the original proceedings to contest the court’s jurisdiction, the certificate and the bank’s calculations. The issues had been determined there, and Carthy had not identified new evidence or a point that could not have been raised at the time.
The judge also noted that O’Moore J had directed Carthy to provide further particulars by 10 May 2024, but he had not done so. Kennedy J said the unparticularised allegations could not support a stateable claim against the solicitors, who had represented the bank and were not parties to the original proceedings. He found no pleaded basis for a damages claim, including on contract or professional negligence grounds.
The ruling concerns the claim against the fifth defendant. The judgment noted that a corresponding application by the sixth defendant was awaiting judgment. It does not itself set aside or alter the possession orders made in the earlier proceedings.