"35. As was observed by the trial judge, Mr. McGreal had been appointed receiver prior to the Loan Sale to Kenmare. That receivership was valid and ongoing pursuant to the original deeds of Appointment. The fact that IBRC (in special liquidation) entered into the Loan Sale with Kenmare and was no longer a party to the loan did not affect the validity of the Receiver's appointment or the ongoing nature of the receivership. The only question arising as a result of the Loan Sale was to whom the Receiver would remit any sums recovered in the course of the receivership. However, that was a matter between the receiver, IBRC and Kenmare and had nothing to do with the plaintiffs. While the execution of the Deeds of Novation might have some potential bearing on when Kenmare succeeded to the position of IBRC in receivership they could have no bearing at all on the question of the continuing validity of the Receiver's appointment over the secured assets."
Mr. O'Connor is not a necessary party to the deeds of novation, and the nature and effect of the deeds of novation are not matters that can be prayed in aid by him for the purposes of this application.
CONCLUSION
In all circumstances and having carefully considered the arguments made by Mr. O'Connor both in writing and in his oral submissions, I have come to the conclusion that the proceedings which he seeks permission to bring are vexatious. That conclusion is fortified by the fact that not only is Mr. O'Connor seeking to reopen aspects of a dispute that has consumed an extraordinary amount of court time in recent years, but also that the proposed draft statement of claim manifestly fails to comply with the long established practice and requirement, reflected in the rules of court, that detailed particulars must be set out in the pleadings in all cases alleging misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful or undue influence. In this case, Mr. O'Connor wishes to level serious allegations of wrongdoing against Mr. Charleton. It is not a case where he alleges that due to some technical infirmity Mr. Charleton's actions are liable to be set aside. Instead, the allegation is that Mr. Charleton acted deliberately, knowingly and dishonestly in continuing receivership after August 2020. On the basis of the voluminous papers considered by the court, that is an unsustainable claim. It is clear that the powers used to appoint Mr. Charleton - set out in a legal document executed by Mr. O'Connor - contemplated expressly that he was entitled to exercise those powers individually.
In all the premises, I will refuse the application. As this judgment is being delivered electronically, I will list the matter for final hearing on the 15 March 2024 at 10.30 am when I will hear arguments on the final form of orders and the issue of costs.