The High Court has dismissed John Cronin’s proceedings against KPMG Ireland, finding that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were bound to fail. The ruling dealt only with KPMG’s application; motions involving the other defendants and Cronin’s other applications were left for a later date.
Mr Justice Cregan delivered the judgment on 25 May 2023. The proceedings arose from loans Cronin borrowed from ACC Bank in 2005, secured against farmland and a house in County Cork. After he defaulted, a receiver was appointed in November 2013. The loan was later acquired by Pepper Finance Corporation Ireland DAC, which sold the property in 2021 as mortgagee in possession.
Cronin’s pleaded complaints included allegations about the appointment and conduct of the receiver, the sale of his property, KPMG’s auditing work and a 2005 report used in separate litigation. The judgment records that KPMG denied responsibility for the receiver’s actions and said it had no involvement in the property sale.
The court found that Shane McCarthy, a KPMG partner, had been appointed receiver in his personal capacity, not as KPMG. It said KPMG was not appointed receiver and had no involvement in selling the lands. The judge concluded that the claims against KPMG concerning the receivership and sale were misconceived and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
The judge also dismissed Cronin’s claims against KPMG Ireland relating to audits of UK companies, finding those complaints misdirected. A separate claim concerning a report prepared in 2005 for a security-for-costs application was also held to be bound to fail: Cronin was not a party to the earlier proceedings, and the court considered the claim statute-barred. The judgment further rejected claims against KPMG based on alleged representations by ACC, and a request to prevent KPMG from disclosing privileged information, which the judge said was unsupported by pleadings or evidence.
The order dismissed Cronin’s proceedings against KPMG. It did not determine the separate applications involving Pepper Finance, Otterham Property, joinder of additional defendants, a defence, or an injunction concerning land that had already been sold; the court said those motions would be considered later.