The Court of Appeal has dismissed Declan and Marian Crowe’s appeal against the decision to strike out their proceedings against Danske Bank, holding that the High Court’s decision was a proportionate response to repeated failures to file a valid statement of claim.
The appeal concerned only the Crowes’ case against the bank. The judgment does not dismiss their claims against the other defendants. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s order after finding that four versions of the statement of claim had failed to disclose a cause of action against the bank.
The proceedings began in 2017. The Crowes’ claims arose from loan facilities made available by the bank’s predecessor, National Irish Bank, in 2006 and 2007. They alleged, among other things, that the bank should have disclosed a referral relationship with KBG Chartered Accountants and advised them to seek independent legal advice. The court found that the pleaded allegations did not establish a claim known to law. A 2019 High Court order had also directed the Crowes to remove references to fraud and plead a cause of action other than fraud; they did not appeal that order.
In February 2020, the High Court directed the Crowes to deliver an amended statement of claim within four weeks. They filed it in January 2021, about ten and a half months after the deadline. The High Court found the document had significant procedural defects and did not identify a legally recognisable claim. It rejected explanations based on a solicitor changing practice and the COVID-19 pandemic, and dismissed the claim against the bank in April 2021.
The Crowes argued on appeal that the High Court had wrongly assessed their pleading, that striking out the claim was disproportionate, and that the judge had shown a lack of neutrality by raising a relevant Supreme Court authority, Tracey v McDowell. The Court of Appeal rejected those grounds. It said both sides had been given an opportunity to consider and make submissions on Tracey, and upheld the finding that the repeated failures to comply with court directions justified striking out the claim against the bank.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s decision. It expressed the provisional view that the bank was entitled to its appeal costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement. The Crowes may make written submissions on costs within 21 days; the bank may respond within a further 21 days. The judgment did not determine the final costs order.