The High Court has struck out claims brought by an anonymised plaintiff over three properties after finding that the proceedings repeated or could have raised issues addressed in earlier cases. It also dismissed his applications for injunctions and discontinued his remaining claims without the costs conditions he had requested. The judge left costs for a further hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 16 May 2023, Mr Justice Cregan dealt with six motions in two cases. The plaintiff did not appear to move either injunction application, and both were dismissed.
The first case concerned a house in Drumcondra. The bank had obtained a Circuit Court possession order in 2016, and the High Court refused the plaintiff’s out-of-time application to appeal. The bank later obtained an execution order, which the Dublin City Sheriff enforced in October 2019. The plaintiff’s subsequent claim alleged, among other things, trespass, assault and unlawful removal from the house. Those were allegations; the sheriff’s representatives disputed his account.
The judge struck out the claims against Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank, the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, Douglas Newman Good, the Dublin City Sheriff and Thomas Gray. He found that the possession dispute had already been decided and that arguments which could have been raised in the earlier proceedings could not be used to mount a collateral challenge. He also found the remaining pleaded claims against those defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious.
The judgment noted that the plaintiff had separately filed a personal injuries claim with the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The judge said any personal injury claim could and should be pursued there; the orders in these proceedings did not determine that separate claim.
The second case concerned investment properties in Clondalkin and Loughrea. In earlier receiver proceedings, the High Court had made orders in October 2019 granting possession to the receiver and bank and restricting the plaintiff’s interference with the receiver and collection of rents. The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed. Justice Cregan found the later case against the receiver and bank was a collateral attack on those orders and could be pursued, if at all, in the receiver proceedings. He struck out those claims.
The court also struck out the claim against the Data Protection Commissioner. The plaintiff’s complaint about whether the receiver and another entity needed to be registered had been considered by the Commissioner, and an appeal against the Commissioner’s decision was pending in the Circuit Court. The judge held that the statutory appeal process was the appropriate route.
In both cases, the remaining claims against Ireland, the Attorney General and the Property Registration Authority were discontinued. The judge did not impose the conditions sought by the plaintiff, including terms about costs. The court was to hear the parties further on costs.