The High Court has struck out Richard Farrington’s proceedings against a receiver, Grant Thornton, Ulster Bank Ireland DAC and Promontoria (Oyster) DAC, finding the case bound to fail and an abuse of process. Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan also said she would order the lis pendens registered against the disputed Limerick property to be vacated because of unreasonable delay in pursuing the action.
The judgment, delivered on 30 January 2023, concerned a claim issued in January 2019 seeking damages of up to €2 billion. Farrington’s pleadings referred to alleged fraud, breach of data protection rights, contract, trespass and conflict of interest. The complaints arose in part from the appointment of a receiver over property at Derrybeg, Ballyclough, and the receiver’s entry and removal of items. The claim also sought a declaration that the charge over the property was unlawful and void.
Farrington alleged that the defendants had acted unlawfully in relation to the loan, the property and personal documents kept there. He argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute concerned European law, but could not identify a question for referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The defendants applied to strike out the case and, alternatively, to vacate the lis pendens.
Justice Phelan found that the statement of claim did not adequately particularise the alleged fraud and that its reference to “Economic Measurement for Lending Institutions” was unintelligible. It also relied on events that occurred after the proceedings began. The judge said those pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, but considered whether the wider complaints intimated in the summons might be capable of being pleaded.
After considering the mortgage deed and affidavit evidence for that separate assessment, the judge found the deed provided for the receiver’s appointment, entry into possession, storage of items left at the property and relevant data sharing. She concluded the receiver was duly appointed and found no basis for claims of trespass, theft or an actionable data protection wrong. She also found no pleaded basis for declaring the charge void.
The court rejected Farrington’s request to adjourn the hearing, finding he had notice of the date and had been provided with the papers. The judge said the proceedings had not been prosecuted promptly and inferred that registering the lis pendens had been a primary motivation for issuing them.
The court struck out the proceedings in their entirety under its inherent jurisdiction as bound to fail and an abuse of process. Separately, the judge said that if the strike-out conclusion were wrong, she would order the lis pendens vacated under section 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 because the delay was unreasonable. She did not decide whether the lis pendens had been properly registered in the first place.