Scanlan v Danske Bank & Ors (Approved) [2023] IECA 102 (27 April 2023)

Scanlan v Danske Bank & Ors (Approved) [2023] IECA 102 (27 April 2023)

The plaintiff's action was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in previous proceedings, including the validity of the Bank's demand, appointment of receiver, and sale of property. The data protection claims were either already the subject of other proceedings or bound to fail. The High Court correctly struck out the action as an abuse of process, frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Citation
[2023] IECA 102
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Gerardine Scanlan; Defendant/respondent: Danske Bank trading as Danske Bank; Defendant/respondent: Sharon Keenan; Defendant/respondent: Stephen Tennant; Defendant/respondent: Targeted Investment Opportunities ICAV
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Mortgage Enforcement, Appointment of Receiver, Data Subject Access Request, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Banking Law Property Law Data Protection Law Abuse of Process Res Judicata Mortgage Enforcement Appointment of Receiver +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerardine Scanlan

Plaintiff/appellant

Danske Bank trading as Danske Bank

Defendant/respondent

Sharon Keenan

Defendant/respondent

Stephen Tennant

Defendant/respondent

Targeted Investment Opportunities ICAV

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's action was an abuse of process and bound to fail
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to re-litigate issues decided in previous proceedings
  3. 3 Whether data protection claims could be pursued in separate proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's action was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in previous proceedings, including the validity of the Bank's demand, appointment of receiver, and sale of property. The data protection claims were either already the subject of other proceedings or bound to fail. The High Court correctly struck out the action as an abuse of process, frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Action against Danske Bank and Stephen Tennant dismissed as abuse of process, frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
  • Plaintiff not entitled to re-litigate issues decided in previous proceedings.