The High Court has dismissed proceedings brought by a tenant challenging the appointment of a receiver over a supermarket premises in Oulart, County Wexford. It found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and amounted to an abuse of process because the validity of the appointment had already been determined by the High Court.
The plaintiff said he was the tenant of his brother, Hugh Corrigan, who owned the premises. His claim was that the receiver had been appointed under an invalid deed executed by KBC Bank Ireland plc on 21 July 2014. The deed also covered three other properties owned by Hugh Corrigan.
The defendant applied to dismiss the case under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or the court’s inherent jurisdiction. In support, the defendant relied on a sworn affidavit from Shane O’Connor and produced the original deed, sealed on behalf of the bank. The judgment records evidence that two people signed it for the bank under its articles of association and a board minute dated 13 December 2013. The plaintiff provided no evidence to contradict that account. The judge concluded the challenge to the deed’s validity had no reasonable prospect of succeeding at a full hearing.
The judge also said the High Court had previously considered the appointment’s validity on two occasions. In August 2014, McDermott J. made an interlocutory order restraining Hugh Corrigan from impeding the receiver from taking possession of the four properties, relying on the deed. In June 2016, Binchy J. refused an application by the plaintiff for a declaration that the deed was invalid. The judgment notes that the defendant said the application had not been properly served and that Binchy J. heard it in the defendant’s absence.
The court also questioned whether the plaintiff had standing because he did not own the premises, but said it was unnecessary to decide that issue.
The defendant’s affidavit referred to other litigation concerning the properties and to a finding by Binchy J. on 2 June 2016 that the plaintiff had acted in contempt of the 2014 order. These matters were recorded in the judgment as background to the defendant’s submissions.
The court granted the application and dismissed the proceedings on the grounds that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and amounted to an abuse of process. It did not issue an Isaac Wunder order. The judge said the defendant could apply for one if there were further attempts to relitigate related issues. Such an order would require court permission before new proceedings, while preserving access for a litigant with a bona fide case.