The High Court has refused an application to strike out a claim concerning the sale of a property in Midleton, leaving the dispute to proceed towards a plenary trial. The court made no finding on the facts or on whether the plaintiffs’ alleged rights affect the purchaser’s title.
Paul Moore and Leslie Moore claim that their right to redeem a mortgage over Broomfield was unlawfully breached by Danske Bank, affecting the appointment of a receiver and the subsequent sale. They say the purchaser acquired the property subject to rights protected by section 72(1)(j) of the Registration of Title Act 1964, and allege that no relevant enquiry was made about their rights.
The third defendant, Finsbury Circle Nominee Limited, applied to strike out the claim against it as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as bound to fail. It pleaded that it bought Broomfield for value and had no connection with the bank. Its counsel argued that the plaintiffs had not identified a right within the statutory provision beyond their former legal ownership.
The judgment recounted that the Moores acquired the Midleton property in 2002. National Irish Bank advanced them €650,000 in 2006, secured by a charge over the property; Danske Bank later acquired the loan rights and obligations. The balance was €574,740.25 as of 24 February 2014. A receiver agreed to sell Broomfield as part of a portfolio in May 2014, and the purchaser was registered as owner in September that year. The Moores remained in possession when the application was heard.
Justice Tony O’Connor said the application had to be assessed on the plaintiffs’ claim at its highest. Given limited disclosure of communications between the parties and the possibility that facts could emerge at trial, he said he could not be confident that the claim against the purchaser would fail in all circumstances. He also noted the potential significance of statutory protections for purchasers paying a receiver, but did not decide how those provisions applied here.
The court refused the strike-out application. It directed the plaintiffs to issue a motion seeking directions, with a proposed timeline towards trial, for return on 28 July 2016. The ruling did not determine whether the alleged redemption right falls within section 72(1), whether the purchaser may rely on section 108(5) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, or the validity of the receiver’s appointment or sale.