Coyne & anor -v- Danske Bank A/S t/a Danske Bank, [2017] IEHC 435 (2017)

Party Name:Coyne & anor, Danske Bank A/S t/a Danske Bank
Docket Number:2015 7432 P
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE HIGH COURT[2015 No. 7432 P.]

BETWEEN

RAYMOND COYNE AND MAUREEN COYNE

PLAINTIFFSAND

DANSKE BANK A/S TRADING AS DANSKE BANK

DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered on the 5th day of July, 2017.

  1. This application comes before the court by way of motion brought by the defendant (“the bank”) seeking an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim on a number of grounds including that it fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action, is frivolous and vexatious, is bound to fail and is an abuse of process by virtue of the rule in Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 .

  2. The plaintiffs are a married couple. Mr. Coyne has served a notice of discontinuance in these proceedings so that the sole continuing plaintiff is Mrs. Coyne. The Coynes have four children and Mrs. Coyne does not work outside the home. Mr. Coyne was a construction worker employed as a foreman in his brother’s business.

  3. In 2006, the Coynes were introduced by Mr. Coyne’s brother to the local National Irish Bank branch manager in Mullingar, Mr. Declan Cox. They were at that time customers of another bank. The Coynes were interested in acquiring a property which was a dwelling house on a large site with planning permission for a second dwelling house. The proposal apparently was that they would acquire this property with finance from the bank, construct the second house and sell both houses at a substantial profit.

  4. In her statement of claim, Mrs. Coyne claims that she and her husband met Mr. Cox in October, 2006, with a view to discussing finance for the proposed acquisition. This resulted in a loan being advanced to the Coynes by the bank in the sum of €225,000 on foot of a facility letter dated the 10th October, 2006. They had at that time an outstanding mortgage of €50,000 on their family home with another lending institution which was discharged by NIB as part of the arrangement.

  5. The scheme proceeded as envisaged but unfortunately the collapse in the property market intervened, rendering the Coynes unable to sell the properties or repay the debt. Consequently, the bank instituted proceedings by way of summary summons seeking judgment for the amount outstanding. These proceedings came on for hearing before the High Court on the 13th July, 2015, when judgment was granted in favour of the bank in the sum of €137,150.03. This was the net sum then due by the Coynes, the bank having in the interim sold the properties and credited the proceeds to their account.

  6. When the summary proceedings came on for hearing before the High Court, the Coynes sought...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL