The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gerard Byrne’s appeals in three related proceedings against Mars Capital Ireland DAC and, in one case, other respondents. It affirmed the High Court’s decision to strike out the claims, except for a limited claim concerning alleged maladministration through overcharging of interest on loan accounts. That claim remains; the appeal judgment did not decide whether overcharging occurred.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Costello on 22 April 2024, concerns loans secured on two properties. In 2006, Byrne borrowed €395,000 from Irish Nationwide Building Society to buy Property B. The written offer described it as a residential investment property, not a principal private residence, and provided for an interest-only loan. Byrne alleged that an INBS branch manager had represented that he could later change the mortgage terms. The appeal court did not determine that allegation on its merits; it held that claims based on the 2006 transaction were out of time.
The court rejected Byrne’s argument that a 12-year limitation period for actions upon an instrument under seal applied to his effort to set aside the mortgage. It also rejected his claim that Mars was committing ongoing constructive fraud by relying on the loan documents despite his complaints about INBS. The court found no identified culpable act by Mars and held that the claim could not revive allegations against the original lender after the limitation period had expired.
A 2018 settlement resolved disputes concerning the loan secured on Property A. Under its terms, Byrne and his former wife were to deliver vacant possession, discontinue earlier proceedings, and withdraw certain complaints. Mars later wrote off more than €314,000 on that loan. The settlement expressly concerned Property A only and did not resolve the debt secured on Property B. The appeal court agreed that complaints about delays in vacating costs orders and writing off the Property A balance disclosed no viable claim: the orders had been vacated, no loss from the timing was shown, and the settlement had produced a substantial benefit for Byrne.
The court also upheld the finding that the pleaded claims under the Consumer Protection Act 2007 were insufficient. It said the Act’s relevant protections required identification of a transactional decision the consumer made, or would have made, because of the alleged practice. Byrne had not identified one attributable to Mars. The court found no pleaded basis for damages against the ten individual respondents in the third proceedings and no proposed amendment that could cure the defects.
The appeal court therefore dismissed all three appeals and affirmed the High Court order, subject to the narrow interest claim that had survived there. It expressed a provisional view that the respondents were entitled to appeal costs, with costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement. It gave Byrne ten days from delivery of the judgment to contact the court office to arrange a hearing if he wished to argue for a different costs order.