The High Court has struck out most of a woman’s claims against two banks, a receiver and the Official Assignee in a dispute concerning lands in Co Kildare. It allowed one claim against the receiver—about the circumstances surrounding her husband’s arrest—to continue for now, and directed her to amend her pleading within three weeks.
In a judgment delivered on 21 June 2024, Mr Justice Conor Dignam considered applications to dismiss the proceedings under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. He struck out the claims against the Official Assignee and against National Irish Bank, Danske Bank and the receiver, except for the limited arrest-related claim against the receiver. The judge did not decide that claim’s merits; he said it was inadequately pleaded and required an amended Statement of Claim.
The plaintiff’s claims included that a 2003 mortgage over land in Folio 976 had been created without her consent, that the transfer of the loan and charge from National Irish Bank to Danske Bank was unlawful, and that Danske Bank’s judgment against her husband and appointment of a receiver were invalid. She also argued that lands in Folios 976 and 38675F formed part of the family home.
The judge found no stateable factual basis for the claim that Folio 976 included the family home. He noted that an earlier application to sell Folio 38675F had proceeded on the basis that it was the family home, and that the plaintiff had not then argued the family home extended into Folio 976. He also relied on earlier court descriptions of parts of Folio 976 as non-residential agricultural fields and storage sheds. The related claims against the banks based on family-home protections were dismissed.
The judge also rejected the challenge to the transfer of the charge. He held that the charge could be transferred even though it was not registered until 2010, after the 2007 transfer of NIB’s banking business to Danske. He dismissed the challenge to Danske’s 2013 summary judgment against O.S., finding that the plaintiff had no stateable basis to challenge a judgment obtained against another party and that it was based on the loan, not the mortgage security.
The separate claim about an alleged 3am raid and the manner of O.S.’s arrest was not dismissed. The judge said the claim as pleaded could not challenge the lawfulness of an arrest made under a court order, but allegations about how the arrest was carried out could potentially give rise to a claim. The defendants had not addressed those circumstances in their affidavits, and the court could not resolve possible factual disputes on the applications.
Claims against the Official Assignee, including those concerning the proposed sale of Folio 38675F and his registration as owner, were also struck out. The judge said the family-home issues had already been considered in the bankruptcy sale proceedings and that the property vested in the Official Assignee upon O.S.’s bankruptcy. He made no order striking out the claim against O.S., as that relief had not been sought in the applications before him. His provisional view was that the Official Assignee should receive costs and that the bank defendants’ costs should be reduced by 20%, subject to any submissions.