Connaughton v Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley
• Judgment Date: 17 April 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 249
• Docket Number: Record No. 2024/2629P

Between:

Denis Connaughton

Plaintiff

and

Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company

Defendant

[2025] IEHC 249

Record No. 2024/2629P

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

Discovery – Exceptional circumstances – Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 – Plaintiff seeking an order for discovery – Whether the plaintiff complied with the rules of discovery

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Connaughton, issued a plenary summons dated 22 May 2024 (Record No. HP 2024 2629P) which appeared to relate to his dissatisfaction with Circuit Court proceedings in the Southwestern Circuit, County of Limerick bearing Record No. 2018/00901S and 6006/2024. On 27 May 2024, Baily Homan Smyth McVeigh, Solicitors, for the defendant, Start Mortgages DAC, entered an appearance on behalf of the defendant and called upon the plaintiff to deliver a statement of claim. Rather than delivering a statement of claim, the plaintiff issued an application by notice of motion dated 22 October 2024. In that notice of motion (dated 22 October 2024) the plaintiff inter alia sought an order for “discovery to assist him in fully detailing in his Statement of Claim”. The plaintiff also sought the following reliefs from the High Court: (a) an order granting the plaintiff his demands as sought in the application; (b) an order issuing an order pursuant to the demands of his claim; (c) a stay on Limerick Circuit Court proceedings in matters 2018/00901S and 6006/2024.

Held by Bradley J that the plaintiff had not sought discovery in the manner set out under the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986. In Bradley J’s view, the plaintiff’s rationale for seeking discovery did not comprise “exceptional circumstances” such that discovery should be directed prior to the delivery of a statement of claim, citing the statement of principle in the observations of Morris J in Law Society of Ireland v Rawlinson [1997] 3 I.R. 592. Rather, the plaintiff’s application was, in Bradley J’s view, premature and was captured by the general rule, the principle of which was articulated by the Supreme Court in joint cases Craddock v RTE & Kavanagh v RTE [2014] IESC 32. In Bradley J’s view, the plaintiff’s case did not share the same features of exceptionality as that which applied in Law Society of Ireland v Rawlinson or in the joint cases of Craddock v RTE & Kavanagh v RTE. Rather, in this application, the plaintiff, in addition to not complying with the rules of discovery, sought access to the originals of documentation, some of which he had in his possession, which was clearly the position when he moved the application before Bradley J. Having regard to the claims made by the plaintiff, Bradley J held that the issues in contention between the parties in the proceedings had not been sufficiently identified and required the pleadings to be closed. Bradley J held that a discovery application, if any, must await that closure i.e.,the delivery of a statement of claim (and possibly the delivery of a defence).

Bradley J refused the plaintiff’s application and all other ancillary reliefs which he sought in the application.

Application refused.

REDACTED

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on the 17 ^th day of April 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION	1
Preliminary	2
Basis for the application	4
Adjournment application	4
DISCUSSION & DECISION	5
The ‘originals’ of documents sought	5
Plenary Summons : Denis Connaughton v Start Mortgages DAC (HP 2024/2629)	7
PROPOSED ORDER	12

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary

1 Mr. Connaughton, the plaintiff, is a litigant in person.

2 The immediate context to this application relates to the issuing by the plaintiff of a Plenary Summons dated 22 ^nd May 2024 (Record No. HP 2024 2629P) which appears to relate to his dissatisfaction with Circuit Court proceedings in the Southwestern Circuit, County of Limerick bearing Record No. 2018/00901S and 6006/2024.

3 On 27 ^th May 2024, Baily Homan Smyth McVeigh, Solicitors (BHSM LLP) for the defendant, entered an appearance on behalf of the defendant and called upon the plaintiff to deliver a statement of claim.

4 Rather than delivering a statement of claim, the plaintiff issued the within application by Notice of Motion 1 dated 22 ^nd October 2024.

5 In that Notice of Motion (dated 22 ^nd October 2024) the plaintiff inter alia sought an order for “ discovery to assist him in fully detailing in his Statement of Claim” of the following matters:

“ (1) A sworn true copy; including all pages 1 to 20 of the document dated 27 ^th July, 2005, titled Denis and Brid Connaughton, Sluggary, Dooradoyle Road, Limerick.

(2) A detailed sworn statement with sworn proofs, written in plain language, that all express conditions grounding the loan offer/acceptance dated 25 ^th August, 2005 between Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd as mortgagee and Denis Connaughton and Brid Connaughton as Mortgagors were carried out; as expressly required by the aforementioned contract.

(3) In regard to the Express Conditions for Interest Rate and the Interest Rate Mechanism expressed and the application thereof; a detailed sworn statement with sworn proofs, written in plain language, that these express conditions grounding the interest rate and interest rate mechanism in the said loan/acceptance stated 25 ^th August, 2005 between Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd as mortgagee and Denis Connaughton and Brid Connaughton as mortgagors, noting therein, that since inception of the contract that the express conditions in regard to interest rate application were at all times operated in the express contract conditions as was expressly required by the mortgagee in aforementioned contract.

(4) All communications; notes, recordings; minutes of meetings; letters; email; faxes; and any communication is sent by the Broker, Providence Finance Services Ltd of 61

Lower Kilmacud Road, Stillorgan, County Dublin, acting as agent; and Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd acting as lender; in regards to Loan Offer/Mortgage with Number [REDACTED].

(5) A sworn statement as to the Defined Type Agency held by Providence Finance Services Ltd at 61 Kilmacud Road, Stillorgan, County Dublin, and Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd; including the scope of agency; functions and duties devolved to the aforementioned broker; by the lender, at the time of the issue of the loan offer dated 25 ^th August, 2005 and if applicable any communication since, in that regard.

(6) Sworn proofs that a 1st legal Mortgage/Charge was placed upon a property expressed therein, expressed under the Heading Security Required, as Slugaire[ 2], Dooradoyle Road, Limerick as per the express condition contained in page 2 of the Loan Offer/Acceptance.

(7) A sworn detailed statement, preferably from a Bank of Scotland Plc Director in Scotland as to how my mortgage was transferred from the Irish entity Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd to the Scottish entity Bank of Scotland Plc. to include what specific law of Ireland was depended upon and what law of Scotland was relied upon, to include a statement regarding how the strict privity of contract rules in Ireland were respected in regards the aforementioned contract of the 25 ^th August, 2005; paying particular attention to a contractual rights of the originating contracting parties. Further a sworn statement as to what legal mechanism was used in making a cross border Transfer and Assignment; and, further how attention was given to all legal and lawful rights of obligations in that contract.

(8) That the within plaintiff asks the Honourable Court for a stay upon any and all other proceedings and/or enforcement action; most particularly in the Circuit Court; in the County of Limerick, with record number 2018/00901S and 006/2004 until the conclusion of the within matter.

(9) that the within plaintiff asks this Honourable Court that no transfer of interest be allowed until the within plaintiff has all the information required to complete the statement of claim.”

6 In this Notice of Motion, the plaintiff also sought the following reliefs from the High Court:

• (a) An order granting the plaintiff his demands as sought in the application;

• (b) An order issuing an order pursuant to the demands of his claim;

• (c) A stay on Limerick Circuit Court proceedings in matters 2018/00901S and 6006/2024.

Basis for the application

7 In the Affidavit sworn on 22 ^nd October 2024 grounding the aforesaid Notice of Motion, the plaintiff states that he “ requires information relating to the contract between the originating parties of the contract grounding the originating claim made by Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company [in order] to complete the Statement of Claim.”

8 He further says that he has a “ strong belief that the express conditions of the Mortgage Agreement being the loan offer/acceptance of 25 ^th August 2005 have not been adhered to.”

9 The plaintiff also states that he has questions regarding the original contracting parties and the role of the broker and his Agency which go to the basis of the contract and securities and where experts in forensic/securities, that he has engaged, have identified errors. The plaintiff thus avers that he has expert testimony which can offer, from the documentation already furnished by Start Mortgages DAC, their opinion on alleged breaches.

10 Again, the plaintiff states that he requires discovery “ to complete his detailed Statement of Claim” and at paragraph 6 of his Affidavit, he inter alia states as follows:

“ there are too many questions in and around the transfers and assignments and operation of the mortgage while in the control of the Defendant, to allow the Start Mortgages DAC to carry out a further sale of anything that would obfuscate matters by removing themselves from all matters without giving direct answers to questions asked; this until full discovery is made”.

11 At paragraph 7 of his Affidavit, the...