Beades v KBC Mortgage Finance Unlimited Compnay and Another, Beades v Anderson and Another, Beades v Anderson and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conor Dignam
• Judgment Date: 27 June 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 363
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record Number 2021/5661 P Record Number 2022/730 P

Between

Jerry Beades

Plaintiff

and

KBC Mortgage Finance Unlimited Company, formerly known as IIB Homeloans Limited and Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC

Defendants

Between

Jerry Beades

Plaintiff

and

James Anderson and Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC

Defendants

Between

Jerry Beades

Plaintiff

and

James Anderson and Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC

Defendant

[2025] IEHC 363

Record Number 2021/5661 P

Record Number 2022/729 P

Record Number 2022/730 P

THE HIGH COURT

Possession order – Strike out – Abuse of process – Defendants seeking orders dismissing the proceedings – Whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Beades, issued the first set of proceedings on 4 October 2021 against the defendants, KBC Mortgage Finance Unlimited Company (KBC) and Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC (Pepper) seeking an order setting aside a possession order of 23 June 2008, a declaration that he was entitled to possession of two properties in Dublin and damages for various wrongs. On 23 February 2022, he issued the second and third set of proceedings seeking reliefs challenging Pepper’s title to the properties and challenging the appointment of the first defendant, Mr Anderson, as receiver over the properties, reliefs seeking to prevent the sale or letting of the properties or any dealing in respect of the properties, reliefs seeking to prevent the defendants from entering or interfering with the properties, and orders freezing any bank accounts that might contain the proceeds of any sale of the properties. He claimed that there was no valid mortgage of 12 June 2003. Each of the defendants in the three sets of proceedings applied to the High Court for orders dismissing the proceedings on the basis that they amounted to an abuse of process, were frivolous, vexatious, and were bound to fail. In the first set of proceedings, Pepper applied for an “Isaac Wunder Order”.

Held by Dignam J that the proceedings should be dismissed on the grounds that they were an abuse of process, were frivolous and vexatious, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were bound to fail. He was not satisfied that the points which Mr Beades wished to include in the proceedings would have the effect of rectifying the flaws in the proceedings other than by bringing an entirely new case and that is not encompassed in the general principle that if proceedings can be improved or rectified they should not be struck out. Dignam J was satisfied that the Isaac Wunder Order should be made in respect of the properties and the defendants to the proceedings, limited to proceedings relating to the properties.

Dignam J made an order striking out Mr Beade’s claims in the three sets of proceedings against KBC pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction on the grounds that those claims were an abuse of process, were frivolous and vexatious and bound to fail, and an order striking out the claims against Pepper and Mr Anderson pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction on the grounds that they were an abuse of process, did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, were frivolous and vexatious and were bound to fail. Dignam J also made an order prohibiting Mr Beades from issuing any further proceedings in respect of 31 Richmond Avenue, Fairview, Dublin 3 and 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin 1 against any of the following: (i) Pepper; (ii) the firm of Deloitte of 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2; and (iii) any of the partners or employees of Deloitte, without leave of the Court.

Applications granted.

Judgment of Mr. Justice Conor Dignam delivered on the 27 ^th day of June 2025.

BACKGROUND

1 . This judgment is concerned with applications by each of the defendants in the above three sets of proceedings for Orders dismissing the proceedings on the basis that they amount to an abuse of process, are frivolous, vexatious, and are bound to fail. It also deals with an application by Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC in the first set of proceedings for what is commonly known as an “Isaac Wunder Order”.

2 . There is a very protracted history to these matters, all of which relates to two properties in Dublin: 31 Richmond Avenue and 21 Little Mary Street (together “the Properties”). Indeed, the Properties have been at the centre of several sets of proceedings in which there have been a large number of applications and appeals. It is stated in one of the grounding affidavits that “ Mr. Beades has issued no fewer than three sets of High Court plenary proceedings, six appeals in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and various applications for stays on High Court Orders…” The background is set out in a number of judgments of this Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. I refer to some of these below. I set out some of the background in an earlier judgment on an application by Mr. Beades to cross-examine the deponents of the defendants' affidavits for these motions ( Beades v KBC Mortgage Finance Unlimited Company & Ors [2023] IEHC 127).

3 . The procedural starting point of that history, insofar as is relevant to these applications, is that in proceedings entitled “ IIB Homeloans Limited v Jerry Beades Record number 2006/623P” (“the Possession Proceedings”) an Order for Possession in respect of the Properties was made by Dunne J on the 23 ^rd June 2008 (“the Possession Order”). This was on foot of a mortgage of the 12 ^th June 2003. Mr. Beades appealed against that Order and the Supreme Court affirmed the Order on the 12 ^th November 2014.

4 . Prior to that appeal, on the 30 ^th September 2008, IIB Homeloans Limited converted to an unlimited company, IIB Homeloans. By special resolution of the 2 ^nd October 2008, IIB Homeloans changed its name to KBC Mortgage Bank. The title to the proceedings does not appear to have been amended at that stage.

5 . In 2009, KBC Mortgage Bank and KBC Bank Ireland plc agreed to enter into a scheme of transfer. Sections 33, 34, 35 and 41 of the Central Bank Act 1971 applied to this scheme of transfer. The scheme was approved by the Minister for Finance on the 26 ^th February 2009 pursuant to SI 125 of 2009 (see Costello J in IIB Home Loans Limited v Beades [2018] IEHC 390).

6 . On the 18 ^th May 2015, the plaintiff in the Possession Proceedings was granted leave to issue an execution order on foot of the Possession Order and an Order issued to the Sheriff. Possession was not obtained at that stage.

7 . In 2017, KBC Bank Ireland plc applied to be substituted into the Possession Proceedings as plaintiff on foot of the transfer in 2009 and for leave to issue an Execution Order pursuant to the Possession Order. This was opposed by Mr. Beades. Costello J delivered a written judgment in respect of that application on the 29 ^th June 2018 ( IIB Home Loans Limited v Beades [2018] IEHC 390) and made that Order on the 25 ^th July 2018. Mr. Beades appealed against that Order.

8 . Following the lodging of that appeal but before it was heard, KBC Bank Ireland plc's rights, title, interest and benefit in and to the Loan Facility, the Facility Letter and the Mortgage were transferred, assigned and conveyed to Beltany Property Finance DAC (“Beltany”).

9 . By Order of Reynolds J dated the 14 ^th October 2019, Beltany was substituted as plaintiff in the Possession Proceedings and was granted leave to issue execution on foot of the Possession Order. Mr. Beades appealed against Reynolds J's Order.

10 . Both appeals (i.e., against the Orders of Costello J and Reynolds J) were heard on the 25 ^th September 2020. Following this but before judgment was delivered, Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC (“Pepper”) acquired Beltany's rights, title and interest in the Loan Facility, the Facility Letter and the Mortgage from Beltany. Pepper was substituted into the Possession Proceedings as plaintiff in place of Beltany by Order of Twomey J on the 18 ^th November 2020. Twomey J also gave liberty to issue execution on foot of the Possession Order. Mr. Beades appealed against Twomey J's Order.

11 . The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against Costello J's decision (of the 29 ^th June 2018) and Reynolds J's decision (of the 14 ^th October 2019) on the 17 ^th February 2021. Whelan J gave a separate written judgment in respect of each of the appeals ( Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Beades [2021] IECA 40 and Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Beades [2021] IECA 41 respectively). (These decisions are published on the Courts Service website as KBC Bank plc v Beades and Beltany Property Finance DAC v Beades but the judgments themselves have Pepper as plaintiff. Whelan J explained that Pepper was being referred to as the plaintiff because that was the most up-to-date position in the Central Office — presumably following Twomey J's Order — but that it was not a pre-judgment on the substitution of Pepper as plaintiff).

12 . In fact, that was dealt with by the Court of Appeal (Whelan, Ní Raifeartaigh and Binchy JJ) when it heard Mr. Beades' appeal against Twomey J's Order. Binchy J delivered judgment on behalf of the Court on the 14 ^th October 2021 dismissing Mr. Beades' appeal ( Beltany Property Finance DAC v. Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC & Beades [2021] IECA 256).

13 . It appears that Mr. Beades rented out the Properties and, in addition to those applications and appeals within the Possession Proceedings, Mr. Beades has also been involved, or sought to be involved, in separate proceedings issued by Pepper against the occupants of the Properties.

14 . On the 8 ^th October 2020, Pepper commenced two sets of proceedings (one each in respect of the two Properties) against “ Persons Unknown in Occupation of the Property Known as ….”( Record Numbers 2020/6888P and 2020/6889P). Two individuals entered appearances, a Ms. Margaret Hanrahan and Mr. Gabriel...