The High Court has dismissed Eamon Carthy’s claim against Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank, Bank of Ireland Mortgages Unlimited Company and Whitney Moore Solicitors, finding that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process.
Mr Justice Conor Dignam delivered the judgment on 31 July 2024. The three defendants had applied to dismiss the claim under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The application also relied on other procedural grounds. The judge dismissed the claim under Order 19, Rule 28 and the inherent jurisdiction; he said it was therefore unnecessary to consider the relief sought under the other grounds.
The claim arose from earlier possession proceedings in Kilkenny Circuit Court concerning lands in Folio 18916F and two loan accounts. The bank sought possession in 2015. The Circuit Court made an order for possession in March 2017, with a 12-month stay and liberty for Mr Carthy and his wife, Bridget Carthy, to apply to have the order vacated. The order was not appealed by Mr Carthy. Ms Carthy appealed a later refusal to vacate it; in March 2020, the High Court struck out her appeal by consent and affirmed the possession order, while extending the stay by seven months.
Mr Carthy alleged that the bank and its solicitors had misled the Circuit Court through fraud, deceit and “manufactured evidence”. He identified three main complaints: a valuation certificate used in the jurisdiction dispute, whether the mortgage documents had been properly signed, and the amount claimed as owing. He also alleged that the defendants failed to raise matters in the High Court appeal. These were allegations, not findings of fraud.
Justice Dignam said the valuation-certificate issue and the other core complaints had been raised, or could have been raised, in the earlier proceedings. Mr Carthy had not appealed the relevant Circuit Court orders or sought to participate in his wife’s High Court appeal. The judge concluded that the new case sought to challenge final decisions on issues that should have been pursued through those proceedings or an appeal. He also found that Mr Carthy could not sue for alleged violations of his wife’s or children’s rights in his own name.
The judge separately concluded that no sustainable claim was made against Whitney Moore. The firm began acting for the bank after the Circuit Court’s possession order, and the alleged matters had already been raised there. The judgment also considered additional points raised in affidavits, including claims involving trusts and the bank’s authority, but found they did not provide a basis to keep the case alive, even with amendments.
The order dismissed the proceedings against the three applicants. The judgment does not determine the separate claims against the other defendants.