The High Court dismissed Arthur O’Neill’s case against two securitisation companies, finding that he had not shown a stateable claim against either. The court also found the proceedings frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process. It did not decide whether the disputed documents for one of O’Neill’s loans were genuine or whether he had been promised 25 years of interest-only repayments.
The judgment, delivered electronically on 7 July 2020 by Mr Justice Barr, concerned an application by the sixth and seventh defendants to strike out the proceedings. The judge ordered the title of those defendants to be amended to their correct names, then dismissed O’Neill’s action against both. The ruling did not determine his separate dispute with a receiver seeking possession of mortgaged properties.
O’Neill said he understood that three loans arranged with First Active in 2007 would be interest-only for 25 years. He alleged that documents later relied on by Ulster Bank showed a five-year interest-only period followed by capital and interest repayments, and that the documents had been fraudulently produced or substituted. The defendants denied wrongdoing and relied on loan documents stating that interest-only payments would apply for the first 60 months.
The judge said the evidence showed that the sixth defendant had acquired beneficial interests in two loans, accounts ending 3704 and 3908, in 2008, and that Ulster Bank repurchased those interests in 2015. O’Neill’s third loan, account ending 2931, was not part of that securitisation. The evidence that the seventh defendant had no dealings with any of his loans was uncontradicted.
O’Neill produced documents for the 2931 loan that differed substantially from the versions put forward by the defendants. The judge said the court could not determine which set was genuine on the material before it. Resolving that conflict would require oral evidence, potentially from O’Neill, the person who completed the documents for First Active, his solicitor at the time, a handwriting expert and the bank manager involved in negotiations. The judge made no finding on O’Neill’s allegation that he had been promised 25-year interest-only terms.
But the disputed documents related to a loan that the sixth defendant had not acquired, and the pleadings gave no particulars or evidence linking either defendant to the alleged fraud. The judge also accepted the defendants’ submission that O’Neill was using the case to obtain documents for his defence in the separate possession proceedings and to frustrate or obstruct them. He said the proper route for seeking documents from an unconnected party was an application for non-party discovery.
The dismissal applied only to the action against the sixth and seventh defendants. The judgment did not resolve the underlying loan-document dispute or decide whether O’Neill could rely on his account of the loan terms in the possession proceedings.