The High Court struck out Henry Greally’s claim against Duff and Phelps (Ireland) Limited, but allowed his claim against Havbell DAC to continue, subject to a fresh amended statement of claim. The ruling concerned whether the case could proceed, not whether the underlying allegations were proved.
Ms Justice Butler delivered the judgment on 7 October 2021. Havbell and Duff and Phelps had applied to strike out the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or being frivolous or vexatious, and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. Frescati Property Management Limited did not apply to strike out the proceedings.
Greally’s case arose from the sale of a property at 158 Upper Salthill, Galway, which secured his loan. Havbell appointed Declan Taite as receiver in January 2017. After Havbell obtained summary judgment against Greally for €130,363.28 plus costs in February 2019, the property was sold in March 2019 for €201,000. Greally alleged that he had been negotiating to pay the judgment debt and was not told the property had been sold before he tried to redeem the mortgage. He also alleged the property was sold at an undervalue. These were allegations considered at the strike-out stage, not findings that the defendants had acted wrongfully.
The judge held that the claim against Duff and Phelps disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Taite had been appointed receiver in his personal capacity; his employment by Duff and Phelps did not make the company the receiver. The court would not substitute Taite for the company or treat them as a single defendant. Greally would need to make a proper application if he wished to add Taite as a defendant.
The claim against Havbell was allowed to proceed because the pleaded case about continuing negotiations, efforts to discharge the judgment debt and lack of notice of the completed sale was not suitable for strike-out on the material then before the court. The judge described the case as difficult and parts as unlikely to succeed, but said the strike-out jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly where amendment could save a claim. She also concluded that the proceedings, as pleaded, were not a collateral attack on the summary judgment.
The court amended the title to use Havbell DAC, rather than Havbell DAC Ltd. It directed Greally to serve a fresh amended statement of claim on Havbell and Frescati, setting out the case he wished to pursue. The draft circulated at the hearing was not accepted. The judgment did not determine the merits of the surviving claim or bar a properly brought application to add a new defendant.