The High Court struck out Caít O’Beirne’s proceedings against Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank, finding that her claims for defamation, abuse of process and damages arising from a Circuit Court possession order were bound to fail. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Twomey on 28 June 2016, did not decide complaints about the underlying loan or the merits of the possession order.
The defamation claim concerned affidavits filed by two bank employees in the Circuit Court possession proceedings. They referred to the “defendants” as owing money, although the loan was owed by Mr O’Beirne’s husband, Brian Coleman, alone. The High Court said Ms O’Beirne was properly joined to those proceedings because she co-owned the charged property, but the affidavits were incorrect in describing the loan as owed by both defendants.
The court found that the error was apparent from the exhibits, which contained statements in Mr Coleman’s name, and that it had been corrected in open court. It also noted that Ms O’Beirne’s affidavit said the Circuit Court had been told she was not liable for the debt. The High Court held that statements in affidavits were protected by absolute privilege under section 17(1) of the Defamation Act 2009 and could not ground a defamation action.
Her abuse of process claim alleged that the bank should not have sought possession against her. The High Court said the Circuit Court had granted the possession order she challenged, and that these proceedings were not an appeal. It therefore had to proceed on the basis that the order was correct for the purpose of deciding the claim before it.
The court also rejected her claim for damages for loss of the property, saying that a challenge to the Circuit Court’s decision should be pursued by appeal. It noted that a notice of appeal had been lodged. The judgment made no determination on grievances about the loan, including interest calculations or amounts due, because the borrower, Mr Coleman, was not a party to these proceedings.
The High Court struck out the proceedings against the bank. The judgment did not determine the appeal from the Circuit Court possession order.