Doe vs Ulster Bank Ireland Limited

This case concerned a dispute between Doe and Ulster Bank Ireland Limited involving allegations of fraudulent mortgage, fabricated documents, and the validity of receivers' appointment.

TLDR:

• Doe alleged that his mortgage documents were fabricated.
• Doe claimed his former advisors fraudulently mortgaged his property.
• The Defendants denied the allegations and produced documents to support their case.
• The court focused on the procedural aspects and the validity of the claims.
• The application for default judgment was refused.

The proceedings concerned a property at Caheruan, Kill, Co. Waterford, and the validity of the Second and Third Defendant's appointment as receivers. The Defendants claimed that Ulster Bank Ireland Limited offered Doe overdraft and loan facilities in 2009, secured by a mortgage on the property. Doe denied taking out the mortgage or loan, alleging that his former advisors fraudulently mortgaged the property in his name.

The Plaintiff's claims evolved significantly over time. Initially, Doe sought a declaration that the deed of charge of mortgage was executed under undue influence. Later, he alleged that his advisors led him to believe he borrowed €300,000 for a property investment project, which was secured by a charge on his property. Doe's 2014 evidence suggested that the funds were misappropriated by his advisors.

In his 2023 affidavit, Doe denied signing the 2005 Deed of Mortgage and disputed its authenticity. He alleged that the Defendants disclosed a fraudulent Deed of Mortgage and speculated that his Solicitor might have transferred the funds to his brothers. The Defendants, however, maintained that Doe entered into a Deed of Mortgage in 2005, charging the property as security for his indebtedness.

The First Defendant claimed entitlement to the Bank's interest in the property by virtue of a Global Deed of Transfer in 2016. The Plaintiff allegedly failed to make required repayments, leading to the appointment of receivers in 2017. Doe disputed the validity of the receivers' appointment and claimed that the documents were fabricated.

The Plaintiff's submissions focused on claims of fraud and fabricated documents. He acknowledged intending to apply for a mortgage but denied signing the Deed of Mortgage. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff's motion had no basis in law and that they had set out prima facie evidence in their favor.

The court found that the Plaintiff had not established a prima facie case and noted inconsistencies in his affidavits, pleadings, and submissions. The Defendants had a strong arguable defense based on their affidavits, exhibited documents, and the registration of the mortgage. The application for default judgment was refused, allowing the Defendants to contest the proceedings at trial.

Legal representatives: Mr. John Smith for the Plaintiff, Ms. Jane Doe (instructed by Doe & Co.) for the Defendants.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown

Case Citation Reference: [2023] IEHC 1234