The Court of Appeal has dismissed Thomas Mullaney’s appeal against the striking out of proceedings he brought against Danske Bank, finding the claims had no legal basis and were an abuse of process.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2023, Ms Justice Costello said the proceedings rested on the argument that State bodies and officials were immune from court summonses and orders, and that Mr Mullaney was therefore entitled to the same immunity under the constitutional guarantee of equality. The court rejected that premise, saying the State is not immune from suit and Mr Mullaney, like anyone else, is subject to the law.
The court said the High Court had correctly struck out the case against the bank as bound to fail. It noted that Mr Mullaney had described his proceedings as a “Constitutional Case and not a Banking Case” and had identified no claim against the bank. The judgment said the proceedings were intended to mount a collateral challenge to earlier orders obtained by the bank, which had not been appealed and remained binding.
Those earlier orders included two judgments obtained by the bank on 16 October 2016 against Mr Mullaney and Ms Breege Mullaney, for €239,095.20 and €69,061.66. The court said Mr Mullaney had acknowledged the debts in an application for a personal insolvency arrangement. The bank petitioned to have him adjudicated bankrupt in July 2019, and the High Court made that order on 13 October 2021. Mr Mullaney issued the proceedings at issue the previous day.
The appeal raised three grounds: that the High Court judge had failed to uphold his constitutional oath, ignored Article 40.1 of the Constitution, and failed to address constitutional points in Mr Mullaney’s affidavit. The Court of Appeal dismissed each ground. It said the High Court judgment had considered the arguments and that rejecting them did not establish that the judge had failed to uphold his oath.
The appeal court also agreed with the High Court that Mr Mullaney had not shown he was entitled to pursue the proceedings while bankrupt. It said the right to do so vested in the Official Assignee, and Mr Mullaney had not shown that he had the Official Assignee’s permission. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order.