The High Court has dismissed proceedings brought by Martyn Barrett, trading as Corporate Recovery Services, against Michael Beglan and ERT Foundation Limited, finding that the case disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was at least partly vexatious.
In a judgment delivered on 14 June 2007, Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled on Beglan’s application under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. ERT Foundation Limited was not a party to the application. The court dismissed the proceedings; it did not determine any separate claim for a specific money sum that Barrett might bring.
The dispute arose from a November 2001 loan. The judgment records that Barrett advanced £8,000 to Beglan, and that €2,000 was repaid in June 2002. Beglan’s solicitors sent Barrett a cheque for the remaining €8,157.90 in July 2003. Barrett said he did not accept it as full settlement because it did not include interest or later advances, but he retained and encashed it. The judge found that the principal of the original loan had been repaid. He said a claim for interest might remain, but could be brought in the District or Circuit Court, as appropriate.
The proceedings, issued in January 2005, sought specific performance and other orders, including orders concerning land in County Westmeath and a claimed charge over it. The judgment records that the loan agreement referred to the land as security, but the judge found no security had been put in place and no undertaking had been given by Beglan’s solicitor. The judge also found that a claim for a “judgment mortgage” in the pleaded form was not a remedy a court could grant.
The judge described the proceedings as misconceived and an abuse of process, finding they were being used to put pressure on Beglan to settle disputed sums and to pressure his solicitors. He also criticised the inclusion in the pleadings and affidavits of allegations involving people who were not parties and could not defend themselves in the case.
The dismissal does not prevent Barrett from bringing a properly framed claim for a liquidated sum said to be owed. The judge noted that no such claim had been made in these proceedings and therefore did not preserve or transfer one to another court.