Fox -v- McDonald & ors [2017] IECA 189 (20 June 2017)

Fox -v- McDonald & ors [2017] IECA 189 (20 June 2017)

The 2016 proceedings were an abuse of process, duplicating claims already litigated and decided in the 2014 proceedings. The claims were bound to fail, offended the doctrine in Henderson v. Henderson, and were frivolous and vexatious. Mr. Fox was not entitled to restrain the sale of his properties through a second action; his remedy was to seek a stay pending appeal.

Citation
[2017] IECA 189
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Fintan Fox; Defendant/respondent: Declan McDonald; Defendant/respondent: Danske Bank trading as Danske Bank; Defendant/respondent: Sherry Fitzgerald Auctioneers; Defendant/respondent: Sherry Fitzgerald Lannon Auctioneers; Defendant/respondent: Sherry O’Reilly Auctioneers
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Appointment of Receiver, Summary Judgment, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking Law Abuse of Process Res Judicata Appointment of Receiver Summary Judgment Joinder of Parties

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fintan Fox

Plaintiff/appellant

Declan McDonald

Defendant/respondent

Danske Bank trading as Danske Bank

Defendant/respondent

Sherry Fitzgerald Auctioneers

Defendant/respondent

Sherry Fitzgerald Lannon Auctioneers

Defendant/respondent

Sherry O’Reilly Auctioneers

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2016 proceedings constituted an abuse of process and were bound to fail
  2. 2 Whether the claims against the defendants were duplicative of prior proceedings
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Fox was entitled to restrain the sale of his properties pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The 2016 proceedings were an abuse of process, duplicating claims already litigated and decided in the 2014 proceedings. The claims were bound to fail, offended the doctrine in Henderson v. Henderson, and were frivolous and vexatious. Mr. Fox was not entitled to restrain the sale of his properties through a second action; his remedy was to seek a stay pending appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in its entirety against all aspects of the High Court order.
  • Mr. Fox restrained from instituting further proceedings in relation to his properties without leave of the court.