Hogan v Tanager DAC & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 739 (20 December 2024)

Hogan v Tanager DAC & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 739 (20 December 2024)

The Plaintiff's claims against Tarbutus Limited and Chartered Assets Management Limited are barred by res judicata as the issues were conclusively determined in prior proceedings. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff are not appropriate for determination by motion, and there is no legal basis for joining additional parties or for interlocutory relief. The proceedings against the Tarbutus Defendants are bound to fail and are struck out. An Isaac Wunder Order is not warranted as the threshold for habitual or persistent vexatious litigation is not met.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 739
Parties
Plaintiff: Conor Hogan; First Defendant: Tanager DAC; Second Defendant: Tarbutus Limited; Third Defendant: Chartered Assets Management Limited; Fourth Defendant: Tom Kavanagh
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory Motions—plaintiff's Motion for Various Orders and Defendants' Motion to Strike Out Proceedings
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion refused in its entirety; proceedings against Tarbutus Limited and Chartered Assets Management Limited struck out as bound to fail; application for Isaac Wunder Order refused.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Rectification of Register, Mortgage Enforcement, Strike Out Applications, Joinder of Parties, Consumer Protection, Receiver Appointment
Property Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Rectification of Register Mortgage Enforcement Strike Out Applications Joinder of Parties Consumer Protection +1 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conor Hogan

Plaintiff

Tanager DAC

First Defendant

Tarbutus Limited

Second Defendant

Chartered Assets Management Limited

Third Defendant

Tom Kavanagh

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory Motions—plaintiff's Motion for Various Orders and Defendants' Motion to Strike Out Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory or final reliefs regarding ownership and registration of the property
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings against Tarbutus Limited and Chartered Assets Management Limited are barred by res judicata
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's claims can be pursued by motion

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff's claims against Tarbutus Limited and Chartered Assets Management Limited are barred by res judicata as the issues were conclusively determined in prior proceedings. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff are not appropriate for determination by motion, and there is no legal basis for joining additional parties or for interlocutory relief. The proceedings against the Tarbutus Defendants are bound to fail and are struck out. An Isaac Wunder Order is not warranted as the threshold for habitual or persistent vexatious litigation is not met.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion refused in its entirety; proceedings against Tarbutus Limited and Chartered Assets Management Limited struck out as bound to fail; application for Isaac Wunder Order refused.

Orders

  • All orders sought by Plaintiff refused
  • Proceedings against Tarbutus Limited and Chartered Assets Management Limited struck out