The Court of Appeal has dismissed Donal and Frederique Keane’s appeal against the striking out of their proceedings against Ulster Bank Ireland DAC, upholding the High Court’s conclusion that their claims could not succeed. The court also expressed a provisional view that the bank should receive its costs of the appeal, with the Keanes allowed 14 days to submit written arguments for a different order and the bank 14 days to respond.
The dispute arose from loans totalling about €1.7 million advanced by the bank in 2006 and 2007 and secured on Camelton Stud, a 147-acre property near Summerhill, Co Meath. The loans went into default from December 2010. The Keanes later said that part of the entrance and driveway lay outside their registered folios and that the property could not be sold because there was no registered right of way. They relied on a 2012 opinion from senior counsel. The appeal court found the assertion that the property was worthless unsupported and not credible, referring to earlier title documents and possible ways to address access.
The bank had sued the Keanes’ former solicitors, Flynn and McMorrow, over the certificate of title they provided when the loans were arranged. That claim was dismissed in 2016 after a delay. The Keanes’ later case against the bank argued, among other things, that the bank’s failure to pursue that claim deprived them of a chance to avoid their debt. They also alleged negligence and unjust enrichment. The bank denied liability and sought to have the proceedings struck out.
The High Court struck out the case in March 2024. On appeal, the Keanes argued that the High Court had improperly resolved disputed facts on a strike-out application, failed to give proper weight to related debt and possession proceedings, and wrongly held that none of their claims had a prospect of success.
The Court of Appeal said a claim must be considered at its “high-water mark” on such an application, but unsupported assertions need not be accepted where there is no credible basis for evidence to emerge at trial. It held there was no basis for finding that the bank had a duty to prosecute its separate claim against the solicitors for the Keanes’ benefit, or that the bank’s conduct created an enforceable representation or estoppel. It also rejected the argument that the bank and the former solicitors were concurrent wrongdoers under the Civil Liability Act, distinguishing a claim to recover a debt from a claim for damages. The court found the loan portfolio sale to Seaconview did not support the Keanes’ unjust-enrichment claim.
The appeal court said the Keanes remained free to raise their arguments as defences in the related debt and possession proceedings. It found no error in the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The ruling did not determine the outcome of those separate proceedings.