The High Court has dismissed a woman’s claim against Danske Bank and a receiver over the sale of her mortgaged home, finding that the proceedings sought to relitigate issues already decided in earlier cases.
In a judgment delivered on 16 March 2022, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the 2017 case repeated, in substance, claims made in proceedings that were dismissed in 2016. The court held that the later proceedings were an abuse of process and struck out claims that could have been raised in the earlier case. Any residual claims were also dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail.
The plaintiff had sought damages and other relief, including the return of the property. Her pleadings alleged, among other things, that the bank and receiver acted unlawfully in dealing with her loan, appointing a receiver and selling the property. The judgment records those matters as allegations, not findings in her favour.
The property in Churchtown, Mallow, secured a €107,500 loan. After an arrears notice in July 2013 and a demand for repayment the following month, the bank appointed Stephen Tennant as receiver. The property was sold in June 2015, and the net proceeds were applied to the loan. A 2016 judgment had struck out the plaintiff’s earlier claim and granted the bank summary judgment for €47,704.46. She did not appeal those orders.
Justice Heslin said the later proceedings had the same essential aim as the earlier case: to challenge the handling of the default, the receiver’s appointment and the sale, and to obtain compensation or the property’s return. He also rejected the argument that the court’s earlier orders could be set aside through the new proceedings, finding no basis to conclude they had been procured by fraud.
The judgment separately addressed claims concerning data protection. It said related issues had been considered in proceedings brought by Grant Thornton after confidential information was inadvertently disclosed to the plaintiff. The court noted that the Court of Appeal had upheld the refusal to join Danske Bank to those proceedings, and that a limited data-protection counterclaim remained there against Grant Thornton.
The receiver’s motion also sought dismissal for delay. The judge found the delay in bringing and progressing the case was inordinate and inexcusable, with no adequate explanation, and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal of the claim against the receiver. He said the result would have been the same without that delay ground.
The bank and receiver succeeded on their motions. The judge’s preliminary view was that costs should follow the event, but allowed 14 days for written submissions if any party sought a different costs order.