The High Court struck out Noel J. Looney’s claims against Punch Holdings and four other defendants concerning lands and buildings at Glanmire, Co. Cork, including Glanmire Mills and a dwelling known as The Fountains. The court said the claims were “inextricably doomed to failure”, particularly because of the statute of limitations.
Looney alleged that the defendants were his tenants and had breached their obligations over the premises. His claims included recovery of possession by forfeiture and damages arising from a 1964 fire that destroyed the mill. He alleged that an insurance payment of about £60,000 was used to build a new factory rather than reinstate the mill, and claimed this led to a successful business and a later sale said to exceed €135 million. These were his allegations, not findings by the court.
The defendants applied to strike out the proceedings under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, arguing that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious. They also relied on the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. Their submissions included that Looney had not established a contractual or estate relationship with the first and second defendants, that he had not served the statutory notice required before seeking forfeiture, and that the claims were out of time.
The court accepted that the possession claim had not been preceded by the required forfeiture notice. A notice attached to the premises shortly before the hearing could not retrospectively remedy that omission, the judge said. The relevant lease also contained no forfeiture clause apart from non-payment of rent, which was not in issue.
The judge considered the title documents to support the defendants’ position that there was no privity of contract or estate between Looney and the first or second defendant. The remaining defendants had no such connection either. The court also found that Looney knew of the relevant events in the 1960s and had received legal advice at the time, while he had offered no stateable explanation for the delay or basis for a limitation exception.
The court granted the defendants’ strike-out application against all defendants. It ordered costs to follow the event, with the hearing of the motion treated as having concluded on one day. Looney’s cross-motion for further discovery was struck out with no order, as little had taken place on it. The judgment did not determine the underlying allegations after a trial.