The High Court has struck out all claims brought by Cornelius Ryan against KBC Bank Ireland over Kinnitty Castle, finding that each claim against the bank either disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was an abuse of process, was vexatious or was statute barred.
Ms Justice Donnelly made the order after considering the bank’s application to strike out proceedings issued in October 2013. The dispute arose from the bank’s lending to Mr Ryan and the appointment of a receiver over the County Offaly property, which operated as a hotel. The application was brought by the bank alone. The judge said any issues between Mr Ryan and the receiver would be determined separately.
The claims included an allegation that the receiver’s appointment prevented a €10 million sale, a complaint about a bank guarantee, claims concerning the receiver’s handling and sale of chattels, harassment, mortgage securitisation and use of the “Kinnitty Castle” trademark.
The judge found that the alleged prevention of the sale had been central to earlier proceedings in 2008, in which the court refused interlocutory relief and the proceedings were later not pursued. She ruled that bringing the sale claim again amounted to an abuse of process and was vexatious. The bank-guarantee claim related to events alleged to have occurred in 2005 and was statute barred; the judge also found that the statutory exception relied on by Mr Ryan did not apply to the pleaded claim.
Claims about the chattels and alleged harassment tied to a 2013 letter accusing Mr Ryan of cyber-squatting were struck out against the bank because the judge found the receiver was not the bank’s agent. She did not decide whether the letter could amount to harassment. The earlier harassment allegations, said to relate to 2005 and 2006, were statute barred.
The securitisation claim was not barred merely because a separate 2013 action had been dismissed for want of prosecution without a decision on its merits. However, the judge found that the issue could and should have been raised in the 2008 proceedings and that pursuing it against the bank in the current case was an abuse of process and vexatious. She also struck out the trademark claim against the bank, finding it was directed at the receiver and disclosed no reasonable cause of action against KBC.
The order applied to Mr Ryan’s claims against the bank. The judgment did not determine any claim against the receiver.