McGuire v Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Noonan
• Judgment Date: 07 December 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 712
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2016 2838 P.]
• Date: 07 December 2018

BETWEEN

ANNE MCGUIRE

PLAINTIFF

AND

ULSTER BANK IRELAND LIMITED

DEFENDANT

[2018] IEHC 712

[2016 2838 P.]

THE HIGH COURT

Personal injuries action – Bound to fail – Frivolous and vexatious – Plaintiff seeking compensation and punitive damages together with special damages – Whether the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail

Facts: First Active Plc, the predecessor in title of the defendant, Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd, granted a loan facility to the plaintiff, Ms McGuire, in the sum of €120,000 in February 2004. This was secured by a mortgage dated the 14th May, 2003 on the property known as 17 Station Court, Ennis, County Clare. On the 24th July, 2003, the mortgage was registered on the relevant folio as a charge against the property. Subsequently in August 2006, First Active Plc granted a further loan facility to the plaintiff in the sum of €212,000 and the facility letter provided that the plaintiff’s property known as 21 Rathban, Tulla Road, Ennis, County Clare would be provided by the plaintiff as security against the loan. The plaintiff entered into these loan facilities with First Active Plc and drew down the funds. The loans were not repaid and a demand for payment was made by the Bank on the 13th January, 2011. As the demand for repayment remained unsatisfied, the Bank instituted proceedings in the Circuit Court in 2013 seeking orders for possession of both properties. Proceedings bearing record number 2013/490 were instituted in respect of 21 Rathban, Tulla Road and proceedings bearing record number 2013/503 in respect of 17 Station Court. On the 18th September, 2015, the proceedings 2013/490 were struck out by the Circuit Court because the Bank’s proofs were not in order. The proceedings 2013/503 were struck out by the Circuit Court on the 5th April, 2016. The Bank said that the reason for this was that 17 Station Court was not the plaintiff’s principle private residence thus giving rise to a jurisdictional issue for that court. The plaintiff said that the reason for the proceedings being struck out was non-compliance with a previous order of the court. The plaintiff issued a plenary summons on the 1st April, 2016 as a litigant in person and served a statement of claim in May 2016. In that document, the plaintiff made a number of discrete complaints: (i) the Bank was in breach of the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears (CCMA) as a result of a call to the plaintiff’s home by one of its employees; (ii) the Bank improperly instituted both sets of proceedings in the Circuit Court; (iii) the Bank refused to “engage meaningfully” with the plaintiff in relation to her debts. In consequence of the foregoing, the plaintiff submitted that she had suffered personal injuries in the form of depression, panic attacks, severe anxiety and difficulty sleeping; her driving instructor business failed, her ability as a teacher deteriorated and her rental income decreased dramatically because of the Bank’s actions complained of. She submitted that her constitutional rights had been infringed upon in defaming her good name by being dragged through the courts and vilified in front of her tenants. The plaintiff claimed €1.25 million compensation and punitive damages together with special damages yet to be ascertained. The Bank applied to the High Court for an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious, was bound to fail and, insofar as it was a personal injuries action, failed to comply with the requirements of relevant legislation governing such claims.

Held by Noonan J that the plaintiff’s claim was both frivolous and vexatious and separately was bound to fail for the same reasons.

Noonan J held that he would dismiss the action.

Action dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered on the 7th day of December, 2018

1 This application is brought by the defendant (‘the Bank’) for an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it is frivolous and vexatious, is bound to fail and, insofar as it is a personal injuries action, fails to comply with the requirements of relevant legislation governing such claims.

Relevant Facts

2 In February 2004, First Active Plc, the defendant's predecessor in title, granted a loan facility to the plaintiff in the sum of €120,000. This was secured by a mortgage dated the 14th May, 2003 on the property known as 17 Station Court, Ennis, County Clare. On the 24th July, 2003, the mortgage was registered on the relevant folio as a charge against the property.

3 Subsequently in August 2006, First Active Plc granted a further loan facility to the plaintiff in the sum of €212,000 and the facility letter provided that the plaintiff's property known as 21 Rathban, Tulla Road, Ennis, County Clare would be provided by the plaintiff as security against the loan. There is no dispute that the plaintiff entered into these loan facilities with First Active Plc and drew down the funds. The loans were not repaid and a demand for payment was made by the Bank on the 13th January, 2011.

4 As the demand for repayment remained unsatisfied, the Bank instituted proceedings in the Circuit Court in 2013 seeking orders for possession of both properties. Proceedings bearing record number 2013/490 were instituted in respect of 21 Rathban, Tulla Road and proceedings bearing record number 2013/503 in respect of 17 Station Court.

5 On the 18th September, 2015, the proceedings 2013/490 were struck out by the Circuit Court because the Bank's proofs were not in order. The proceedings 2013/503 were struck out by the Circuit Court on the 5th April, 2016. The Bank says that the reason for this was that 17 Station Court was not the plaintiff's principle private residence thus giving rise to a jurisdictional issue for that court. The plaintiff says that the reason for the proceedings being struck out was non-compliance with a previous order of the court.

The Plaintiff's Claim in these Proceedings

6 The plaintiff issued a plenary summons on the 1st April, 2016 as a litigant in person and served a statement of claim in May 2016. In this document, the plaintiff makes a number of discrete complaints which appear to be in summary form as follows:

‘(i) The Bank was in breach of the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears (‘CCMA’)as a result of a call to the plaintiff's home by one of its employees;

(ii) The Bank improperly instituted both sets of proceedings in the Circuit Court;

(iii) The bank refused to ‘engage meaningfully’ with the plaintiff in relation to her debts;

In consequence of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered personal injuries in the form of depression, panic attacks, severe anxiety and difficulty sleeping. Her driving instructor business failed, her ability as a teacher deteriorated and her rental income decreased dramatically because of the Bank's actions complained of.

The plaintiff's constitutional rights have been infringed upon in defaming her good name by being dragged through the courts and vilified in front of her tenants.

7 The plaintiff claims €1.25 million compensation and punitive damages together with special damages yet to be ascertained.

Discussion

8 Although a number of issues are raised by the plaintiff in her statement of claim, the gravamen of the claim is that she has an entitlement to damages because she was sued unsuccessfully in the Circuit Court. Although not explicitly articulated as such, the only recognised legal...