The High Court has refused Jerry Beades leave to cross-examine three people whose affidavits support applications to dismiss or strike out three sets of proceedings concerning two Dublin properties.
Mr Justice Dignam’s ruling, delivered on 7 March 2023, dealt only with Mr Beades’ applications for cross-examination. It did not decide the defendants’ applications to dismiss, strike out or stay the underlying cases.
The proceedings concern 31 Richmond Avenue and 21 Little Mary Street. In a 2021 case against KBC Mortgage Finance Unlimited Company and Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC, Mr Beades seeks to set aside a 2008 possession order, a declaration that he is entitled to possession and damages. Two cases issued in 2022 name James Anderson and Pepper Finance as defendants. They challenge the defendants’ claimed title and Mr Anderson’s appointment as receiver, among other matters. The properties have since been sold.
The defendants’ pending applications contend, among other grounds, that the proceedings disclose no reasonable cause of action, are an abuse of process or are barred because related issues have already been decided or could have been raised earlier. Those are the defendants’ submissions, not findings made in this ruling.
Mr Beades sought to question Daragh Langan, Gerard McHugh and Pamela Keely, who had sworn affidavits supporting the defendants’ applications. He argued, among other things, that the deponents’ opinions lacked credibility and that new evidence about his signature on the mortgage supported bringing fresh proceedings. He referred to a documentation examiner’s report which, he said, concluded the signature was likely not his.
Mr Justice Dignam found no material conflict in the affidavit evidence that needed to be resolved through cross-examination. He said Mr Beades had not disputed the factual account of the earlier proceedings set out in the defendants’ affidavits. His evidence about the mortgage signature did not contradict that history, the judge said, and did not need to be resolved to decide whether the matters had already been tried or could have been raised before.
The judge also held that the underlying applications could be decided by examining the pleadings, affidavits and court records. The defendants would still have to meet the high threshold for dismissal or strike-out, and the court hearing those applications would generally have to take Mr Beades’ pleaded case at its highest. The judge did not determine whether the new mortgage evidence affected the claims.
The court refused leave to cross-examine all three deponents. The defendants’ applications to dismiss, strike out or stay the proceedings were not decided in this judgment.