The High Court struck out James Behan’s 2002 negligence action against Edward McGinley, the nominated representative of the late senior counsel Noel Clancy, and granted motions to dismiss Behan’s 2005 action against the Bank of Ireland and three other defendants. The court found that the later claims revisited matters addressed in earlier litigation and that allegations of collusion in the 2005 case lacked particulars and evidential support.
The ruling was delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 24 January 2008. It concerned applications to strike out or dismiss the pleadings, not a trial of the new claims. The court also granted the relief sought in motions brought by the bank and by the other defendants in the 2005 proceedings. Behan’s motion for judgment in default of defence was struck out because those proceedings had ended. The judgment does not state that the court made an order barring Behan from issuing future proceedings without leave.
The disputes arose from Behan’s earlier dealings with the bank and its decision to call in his farming debts in the 1980s. In a 1990 action, the High Court found no enforceable agreement requiring the bank to keep funding his farm. It also found that the bank had wrongly failed to pass on benefits under a government reduced-interest scheme. Behan was awarded reimbursement of £18,455.18, with interest. The Supreme Court upheld the central findings in 1998.
Behan’s 2002 action alleged that Clancy had mishandled the 1990 litigation, including by failing to present documents, challenge evidence or seek greater damages. Justice Irvine found that the ACOT farm report had been introduced through its author’s evidence, and that the bank’s agricultural expert had been cross-examined. The earlier courts had also considered the dishonoured cheques and the losses Behan attributed to the bank’s treatment of his scheme application. The judge concluded that the pleaded negligence had not been shown to cause losses beyond those already considered, and struck out the action as vexatious and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
In the 2005 action, Behan alleged that his former counsel and the bank had misled him or the court and colluded to deny him his legal rights. Justice Irvine found the conspiracy and collusion claims had not been adequately particularised and that the affidavits offered no evidence to support them. The court also held that the negligence claims against counsel were statute barred: it calculated a six-year period from 27 July 1998, when Behan dismissed his counsel, while the 2005 proceedings began by plenary summons dated 12 July 2006. The judgment ended both actions at this procedural stage.