Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Hade

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Barr
Judgment Date21 December 2022
Neutral Citation[2022] IEHC 728
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[Record No. 2014/1416S]
Between
Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank
Plaintiff
and
Niall Hade and Joyce Hade
Defendants
Between
Niall Hade
Plaintiff
and
Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank and Michael Mcateer
Defendants

[2022] IEHC 728

[Record No. 2014/1416S]

[Record No. 2014/4328P]

THE HIGH COURT

Summary proceedings – Plenary proceedings – Interests of justice – Plaintiff seeking to reopen cases – Whether it was in the interests of justice that the litigation should be rerun

Facts: Two actions were heard together over seven days between 11th October, 2022 and 20th October, 2022. In the first action, the plaintiff, Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank (the bank), sought summary judgment against the defendants, Mr and Mrs Hade, on foot of two loans which they had with the bank. The defendants had a defence and counterclaim, wherein they sought damages against the bank for alleged wrongdoing on the part of the bank in connection with the loans and in relation to certain mortgages that had been executed as security for the loans. In the second action, the plaintiff, Mr Hade, sued the defendants, the bank and Mr McAteer (the receiver), in respect of alleged wrongdoing on the part of the bank in appointing a receiver and on the part of the receiver in selling some of the properties and allegedly mismanaging other properties over which he had been appointed. On 25th November, 2022, the High Court delivered a reserved judgment in both actions: [2022] IEHC 645. The bank obtained summary judgment against the defendants jointly and severally on foot of the two loans. In the plenary proceedings, Mr Hade obtained an award of exemplary damages against the receiver in respect of the wrongful taking of possession of some of the properties and the wrongful sale of some of the properties. In written submissions dated 8th December, 2022, the bank and the receiver urged the court to reopen certain aspects of the case, to enable them to call evidence thereon and to make further oral legal submissions. In his further written submissions, Mr Hade pointed out what he perceived as being a number of errors in the judgment. However, he objected to the matter being reopened.

Held by Barr J that it was not appropriate to reopen the hearing of either of the cases. He held that the matters that were raised by the bank and the receiver in relation to what they perceived as being errors in the substantive judgment were matters that were more properly raised in a notice of appeal; similarly, the perceived errors in the judgment according to Mr Hade were also matters that should be raised by him in his notice of appeal, if he wished to contest all, or any part of the judgments in the two cases. Barr J held that two of the parties to the actions were acting as lay litigants. The court was conscious that if the matter was reopened at the behest of the bank and the receiver, the court would have to allow Mr and Mrs Hade to reopen matters that may be of concern to them. The court was of the view that were it to accede to the application made on behalf of the bank and the receiver, it would effectively be reopening, if not the entirety of the two cases, certainly a very large proportion of them. Barr J held that it was not in the interests of justice that this relatively substantial piece of litigation, which took seven days at hearing in the High Court, should effectively be rerun almost in its entirety. For those reasons, the court refused the application made on behalf of the bank and the receiver to reopen either of the cases, or to reconsider its judgment already delivered in the cases.

Barr J held that the justice of the case was best served if there was no order for costs in either case.

Application refused.

RULING of Mr. Justice Barr on Application to Reopen the Case and Final Orders delivered 21st December, 2022.

1

. These two actions were heard together over seven days between 11th October, 2022 and 20th October, 2022. In summary, in the first action, the bank was seeking summary judgment against the defendants on foot of two loans which they had with the bank. The defendants to that action, Mr. and Mrs. Hade, had a defence and counterclaim, wherein they sought damages against the bank for what they perceived as being alleged wrongdoing on the part of the bank in connection with the loans and in relation to certain mortgages that had been executed as security for the loans.

2

. In the second action, Mr. Hade was suing the bank and the receiver in respect of alleged wrongdoing on the part of the bank in appointing a receiver and in respect of alleged wrongdoing on the part of the receiver in selling some of the properties and in allegedly mismanaging other properties, over which he had been appointed.

3

. At the conclusion of the hearing of evidence in the cases, the parties were given a period within which to furnish written submissions. They were also given an opportunity to furnish further supplemental submissions, in response to the written submissions that had been lodged by the other party.

4

. On 25th November, 2022, the court delivered a reserved judgment in both actions, which is reported at [2022] IEHC 645.

5

. In the judgment delivered by the court herein, the bank obtained summary judgment against the defendants jointly and severally on foot of the two loans. In the plenary proceedings that had been brought by Mr. Hade, he obtained an award of exemplary damages against the receiver in respect of the wrongful taking of possession of some of the properties and the wrongful sale of some of the properties. At the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT