The High Court dismissed proceedings brought by Michelle Sheehan and Eamon J. O’Neill against Link Asset Services and Mason Hayes and Curran, finding the case was an abuse of process, frivolous and vexatious, and bound to fail.
In a judgment delivered on 6 March 2020, Mr Justice Meenan said the pleadings identified no cause of action against the defendants. He said issues raised in the claim already arose in separate bank proceedings and that some had been decided against Sheehan there. He also found that allegations against Mason Hayes and Curran repeated allegations Sheehan had withdrawn in court during those proceedings.
The dispute had its roots in a loan of approximately €1.2 million advanced in or about August 2007 by ACC Bank, as it then was, to Sheehan and her mother, Margaret Hanrahan, to finance the purchase of about 34 hectares of land. After repayments were not made, the bank began proceedings in 2011 seeking more than €1.5 million.
Sheehan’s defence in that case alleged that Nash McDermott and Co., the solicitors who advised her and her mother on the transaction, also acted as the bank’s agents and had advised her negligently. The bank denied that the firm acted for it. The judgment records that the bank proceedings remained ongoing.
The claim before Mr Justice Meenan sought €450,000 in damages. The judge said its pleadings largely recounted events and did not identify a legal cause of action. He considered that the closest claim was for mental distress or worry arising from the bank proceedings or their failure to settle. He held that the bank was entitled to sue for an unpaid loan and that no party was under a duty to settle the proceedings; the claimed distress did not provide a cause of action in the circumstances.
O’Neill described himself as a business consultant and had assisted Sheehan as a “McKenzie friend” in the bank proceedings. The judge said he had no cause of action against the defendants and no basis to be named as a plaintiff, and dismissed the action as against him.
The defendants had also sought an order requiring prior permission from the President of the High Court before further proceedings could be issued against them or specified people associated with them. The judge did not decide that request at this stage. He invited further submissions from the defendants, with Sheehan and O’Neill given an opportunity to respond, on how to address the situation. The dismissal order was granted in the meantime.