The High Court has struck out Henry Swords’ claim against AIB Bank Plc and AIB Leasing Ltd, ruling that the proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious.
Mr Justice Eagar gave the ruling on 27 October 2017, on the defendants’ application to dismiss the claim. He found that the plenary proceedings amounted to an attempt to rerun an earlier summary case over a guarantee of up to €40,000 for debts owed by Pro Design Print Management Ltd.
Swords’ claim alleged, among other things, that the defendants had wrongly described him as a company director, pursued him under a guarantee he said he had not signed, misrepresented his position and mishandled information and court proceedings. He also sought to have the Master’s Court judgment set aside.
The defendants argued that the new case overlapped with High Court proceedings brought in 2013, in which AIB sought payment under the guarantee. The judgment records that the Master granted liberty to enter final judgment for €39,700 and costs in March 2015. The High Court noted that Swords could have appealed that judgment or applied to set it aside, and said he may have had grounds to do so. It did not set aside the earlier order in this case.
In considering the pleaded claims, Mr Justice Eagar said the documents relied on did not show that the bank had identified Swords as a director. One described him as a financial controller and guarantor; another described him as a self-employed printer-director. The judge also rejected as without foundation the allegation that the affidavit used in the earlier case listed him as a director, noting that it referred to him as a guarantor.
The court said the pleaded claims did not disclose a cause of action known to law or likely to be established. It also held that the earlier dispute had already been ventilated in the summary proceedings and that the principle of estoppel applied to a final adjudication between the parties.
The order struck out Swords’ claim against both defendants as an abuse of process, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and as frivolous and vexatious. The judgment addressed the defendants’ strike-out application; it did not determine the underlying guarantee dispute anew.