The High Court has struck out Conor Hogan’s proceedings against Tarbutus DAC and its property manager, Chartered Assets Management Limited, ruling that the claims had already been determined in earlier litigation. It refused a separate request to restrict Hogan from bringing future proceedings against the companies.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Nessa Cahill on 20 December 2024, concerns a duplex apartment in Ballycummin Village, County Limerick. Hogan’s 2020 proceedings alleged that the property was sold unlawfully and at an undervalue, that its registration to Tarbutus was fraudulent, and that his rights had been breached. He sought, among other relief, rectification of the property register and damages.
A separate case brought by Tarbutus had already resulted in findings that it was the lawful registered owner and that there was no basis to rectify the register. The High Court decision in that case was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court refused Hogan leave to appeal.
Justice Cahill found that the issues Hogan sought to pursue against Tarbutus in the current proceedings—including its title, the registration, and allegations concerning the sale—were covered by those final decisions. She held that the doctrine of res judicata applied. She also found that Chartered was Tarbutus’s agent and privy for these proceedings, and that the earlier determinations barred the claims against it too. The claims against both companies were struck out under Order 19, Rule 28 because they were bound to fail and had no reasonable chance of succeeding.
Hogan had also sought 19 orders by motion, including declarations about ownership and the property’s description, a stay on the liquidation of Tanager DAC, and the addition of Éire and other proposed parties. The judge refused every order he pursued. She said many of the requests sought final decisions that could not properly be made by an interlocutory motion, raised matters outside the pleaded case, or attempted to revisit issues already decided. The requests to add proposed notice parties were also refused.
The proceedings may continue against Tanager and receiver Tom Kavanagh, the first and fourth defendants. Justice Cahill refused the requested Isaac Wunder order, finding insufficient evidence that Hogan had persistently pursued abusive litigation: he had started one of the three cases concerning the property, and it was not frivolous or vexatious when issued. The court listed the case for 14 January 2025 to address costs and any other questions.