The High Court dismissed proceedings brought by Bula Limited (in receivership), Bula Holdings, Richard Wood and Michael Wymes, ruling that they amounted to an abuse of process. It also restrained the plaintiffs from bringing any further proceedings against any defendant without the court’s prior leave.
In a judgment dated 10 June 2005, Mr Justice Murphy considered motions by Northern Bank Finance Corporation, Ulster Investment Bank and Allied Irish Investment Bank. The motions sought dismissal of the case and restrictions on further proceedings. The court’s final order extended the restriction to proceedings against all defendants.
The plaintiffs’ claims concerned the sale of the Bula ore body to Tara Mines Limited under a contract dated 9 May 2001, completed in July 2002. They alleged, among other things, that Navan Mining had an interest in the banks’ security over Bula’s assets and was involved on both sides of the sale. They claimed conflicts of interest, an undervalue and concealment that had misled courts in earlier proceedings. These were allegations; the defendants denied wrongdoing and denied that Navan was involved in Tara’s purchase.
The immediate dispute was whether the new proceedings could go ahead after earlier High Court and Supreme Court proceedings concerning the sale and the banks’ claims. The plaintiffs argued that the Navan issue had not been properly heard or decided in the earlier approval proceedings under section 316A of the Companies Act 1963. They also said the present case was their first chance to pursue related claims for damages and to challenge earlier judgments for alleged fraud.
The court held that the conflict and Navan issues had been relevant to the section 316A proceedings and had been raised there. It found that the plaintiffs had withdrawn supporting evidence, and that no new evidence or adequate factual basis was offered in the present case. The court also found that the fraud allegations lacked the particularity required to challenge final court decisions. It concluded that the claims had already been dealt with, or could have been dealt with, in earlier litigation, and that seeking discovery to supply the missing basis was an abuse of process.
The court dismissed the proceedings in full. It did not conduct a trial of the pleaded allegations or make a new determination of the underlying sale’s merits. Its order barred the plaintiffs from instituting further proceedings against any defendant without prior leave of the High Court.