The Court of Appeal has largely upheld the dismissal of Gerardine Scanlan’s action against Danske Bank and receiver Stephen Tennant, but ruled that her claim concerning the contents of the secured property may proceed.
In a judgment delivered on 27 April 2023, Mr Justice Allen said Ms Scanlan could pursue claims for damages and declarations over the alleged disposal of belongings from the property. The court varied the High Court order to preserve that limited part of her case. It struck out the final sentence of paragraph 28 of her statement of claim, which referred to alleged disposal of contents from other properties. The court said the belongings claim could not be used to reopen disputes about the sale of the house.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s dismissal of Ms Scanlan’s 2017 action as an abuse of process and as frivolous and vexatious and disclosing no reasonable cause of action. That action followed a 2014 loan default and the appointment of Mr Tennant as receiver over a residential investment property in Cork. The property was sold in June 2015, and the Bank obtained judgment for the remaining loan balance in 2016.
The Court of Appeal said the 2017 action repeated, or sought to revisit, issues raised in Ms Scanlan’s 2014 action, which the High Court had dismissed in 2016. Those earlier proceedings concerned, among other matters, the Bank’s demand for repayment, the receiver’s appointment and the realisation of the security. Ms Scanlan had not appealed the 2016 decisions. The Court of Appeal held that those issues could not be litigated again.
It also rejected her arguments that the 2017 proceedings could revisit whether the loan was in arrears, whether she had a right to be heard before the property was sold, and whether the Bank needed to obtain possession before exercising its power of sale. The court said the prior proceedings had conclusively determined the disputes about the demand, appointment and sale.
Ms Scanlan’s data protection claims were also not permitted to proceed in this action. The judgment noted that damages claims under the Data Protection Acts were already part of her counterclaim in separate proceedings brought by Grant Thornton, and that other data protection claims had been addressed in earlier decisions. The court said she could not pursue the same issues in separate proceedings or later raise claims that could have been included earlier.
The Court of Appeal otherwise affirmed the High Court’s dismissal of the action. It did not decide costs in this judgment; the case was listed for submissions on costs on 2 May 2023.