Sheridan v Allied Irish Banks PLC [2020] IEHC 141 (06 March 2020)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Allen delivered on the 6th day of March, 2020

1. This is an application on behalf of the defendant for an order pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of

the Rules of the Superior Courts striking out the plaintiff’s claim for failing to disclose a

reasonable cause of action and/or on the grounds that it is frivolous and vexatious.

Alternatively, the defendant asks for an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the

court striking out the claim on the grounds that it is bound to fail and is an abuse of

2. I will come in due course to the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant. It is founded on a

3. In the late 1950’s James Valentine Sheridan, who was then about 30 years of age,

emigrated from Dublin to Poughkeepsie, New York, where he established an industrial and

home cleaning business under the name Emerald Service Industrial and Home Cleaning.

Sometime later, James Valentine Sheridan was joined by his brother Patrick F. Sheridan

and they both carried on the cleaning business together until about 1972.

4. On 5th February, 1965 a limited liability company was incorporated in Ireland under CRO

22322 called Emerald Contract Cleaners (Ireland) Limited. The registered shareholders

and directors of this company were James V. Sheridan and Patrick F. Sheridan. The

precise circumstances in which this company came to be incorporated are not clear. It

5. When in 1972 James Valentine Sheridan returned to Ireland he bought a house at 229

Sea Park Estate, Malahide, County Dublin. James Valentine Sheridan was initially

involved in the motor trade with another brother, Anthony Sheridan. The accountant for

the motor business was Fintan P. Flannelly, to whom James Valentine was introduced by

Anthony. The motor business did not prosper and in 1974 James Valentine Sheridan

established a contract cleaning business here. He instructed Mr. Flannelly to incorporate

a new company but somehow or other the cleaning business came to be carried on

6. There is not the slightest doubt that the James V. Sheridan who was introduced to Mr.

Flannelly was James Valentine Sheridan but Mr. Flannelly thought that James V.

Sheridan’s middle name was Vincent and used the name James Vincent Sheridan in the

7. Between 1974 and 1989 the cleaning business carried on by CRO 22322 was carried on

by James Valentine Sheridan and his family. Patrick F. Sheridan had no involvement.

For reasons which at this remove are not apparent, in 1989 James Valentine Sheridan

decided to form a new company. Mr. Flannelly incorporated a new company called

Emerald Contract Cleaners Limited under CRO 148369. That company and CRO 22322

swapped names so that CRO 148369 became Emerald Contract Cleaners (Ireland) Limited

and CRO 22322 became Emerald Contract Cleaners Limited. All of the assets and

undertaking of CRO 22322 were moved into CRO 148369 and on 9th April, 1999 CRO

22322 was struck off the register. The typed forms prepared by Mr. Flannelly’s office

showed the directors as James Vincent Sheridan and Helen Sheridan, both of 229 Sea

Park Estate, Malahide, County Dublin, and were signed James V. Sheridan.

8. As Patrick F. Sheridan had followed his brother James V. Sheridan to Poughkeepsie, New

York, he appears to have followed him back to Dublin, where, in 1996 unhappy

differences brought Patrick F. Sheridan and his wife Pauline Elizabeth Sheridan before

9. In the litigation before McGuinness J., Pauline Sheridan claimed that Patrick F. Sheridan

had clandestinely repatriated a large sum of money from New York. A sum of

IR£2,112,210 was said to have been transferred by Patrick F. Sheridan to either CRO

10. The plaintiff’s brother, Patrick Sheridan, then produced to the High Court a revenue form

dated 14th December, 1993 which he asserted showed a payment by Patrick Francis

Sheridan into the VAT account of CRO 148369. The ostensible basis of this claim was

that a figure of “2112210” showed that a sum of IR£2,112,210, had been transferred by,

or from the estate of, James Vincent Sheridan, late of Poughkeepsie, New York, to CRO

148369, which had been paid by Patrick F. Sheridan to the Revenue as an overpayment

11. That claim was determined in 1996 by McGuiness J. and was dismissed. In a written

judgment delivered on 30th July, 1996 McGuinness J. said that apart from the inherent

unlikelihood of anyone paying an unnecessary sum of over IR£2 million to the Revenue,

she had the evidence of an officer of the Revenue Commissioners who explained that the

number 2112210 did not represent money at all, but was a fictional figure used by the

Revenue as a method of checking their computer programmes. McGuinness J. then

“It is clear, therefore, that this entire edifice of accusation has been built on fiction.

Based on this fiction, and on some other allegations in relation to the companies,

the wife has reported her husband to the Fraud Squad, and he has been

interviewed at length by the Garda authorities which must have been a distressing

and difficult experience for him. It also appears that this investigation by the Fraud

12. Patrick F. Sheridan and Pauline Elizabeth Sheridan had seven children, one of whom was

variously called Seamus V. Sheridan, Seamus Vincent Sheridan and James Vincent

13. James Vincent Sheridan was born in Holles Street Hospital in Dublin on 16th May, 1952

and died in a road traffic accident in Cobleskill, Schoharie, New York on 20th December,

1971. James Vincent Sheridan was 19 years of age when he died. He was blind from

birth and had attended a special school for the blind in the Bronx, New York, from the age

of six years to fifteen years. He lived in school from Monday to Friday and came home for

14. James Vincent Sheridan’s birth certificate gives his name as James Vincent Sheridan. His

death certificate suggests that he was variously known as Seamus V. Sheridan, Seamus

15. By reference to papers filed in the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess State, State of New York,

in 1972, James Vincent Sheridan owned no property. A grant of letters of administration

intestate was extracted by Patrick F. Sheridan on 7th February, 1972 to allow a fatal

injuries action to be brought on behalf of the estate and the papers show that that action

was settled in 1974 for US$35,000. The net proceeds of the claim after the attorney’s

fees were deducted amounted to US$25,000 and that was divided equally between Patrick

16. On 4th June, 1997 Pauline Elizabeth Sheridan obtained a grant of letters of administration

intestate of the estate of James Vincent Sheridan. The grant showed that James Vincent

Sheridan had died on 20th December, 1971 in Cobleskill, New York but gave an address

at 57 St. Agnes Park, Crumlin, Dublin. It showed a net estate of IR£11.00

17. On 4th December, 2000 Pauline Elizabeth Sheridan – holding herself out as a member of

the company - presented a petition to the High Court for the restoration of CRO 22322 to

the register of companies and on 19th February, 2001 the High Court (Carroll J.) made

the order sought. The premise of the application was that the petitioner was the owner

18. On 6th December, 2001 an application was made to the High Court on behalf of James

Valentine Sheridan to vacate the order of 19th February, 2001; to dismiss the petition; to

strike out any returns made by the petitioner to the companies registration office; and to

restrain Pauline Sheridan and her children from holding themselves out as directors or

shareholders of CRO 22322 or CRO 148369. That application was heard by Carroll J. on

29th and 30th October, 2002. The order of Carroll J. made on 5th November, 2002

shows that besides the affidavits of James Valentine Sheridan and Pauline Elizabeth

Sheridan the court had the judgment of McGuinness J. and that on the second day of the

hearing Pauline Elizabeth Sheridan consented to the 2001 order being vacated. An

affidavit of Mr. Paul Farrell, Registrar of Companies, filed on 29th June, 2004 shows that

in the course of the hearing on 30th November, 2002, Carroll J. observed that the order

19. The order of Carroll J. made on 5th November, 2002 declared that all documents filed in

the companies office subsequent to 19th February, 2001 were null and void and had no

legal effect and directed that a copy of the order be filed with the registrar and placed on

the file of Emerald Contract Cleaners Limited but refused so much of the application as

had sought an order restraining Pauline Sheridan and her children from holding

20. Unfortunately, Mrs. Sheridan and her son John, the plaintiff, misunderstood the refusal of

an order restraining them from so holding themselves out as an acceptance by the court

that they were directors and shareholders and as permission to so hold themselves out.

21. In the Spring of 2004 Mrs. Sheridan and the plaintiff tried to persuade Allied Irish Banks

plc to release to them the banking records of Emerald Contract Cleaners (Ireland)

Limited. On 2nd April, 2004 the order of Carroll J. of 5th November, 2002 was presented

to Allied Irish Banks plc as supporting Mrs. Sheridan’s “position and rightful place

regarding directors, shareholders and agents of the trading company, company number

148369”. Of course the order did no such thing and the request for records was

22. Pauline Sheridan died on 27th August, 2016. She left a will naming John Sheridan as

her executor. John Sheridan proved Pauline Sheridan’s will on 31st January, 2017 and

on 9th May, 2018, as Pauline’s legal personal representative, took out a grant of letters of

administration intestate de bonis non in the estate of James Vincent Sheridan. On 16th

May, 2018 John Sheridan took out a grant of letters of administration intestate in the

estate of Seamus Vincent Sheridan, aka Seamus V. Sheridan, aka James Vincent

Sheridan in the Surrogate’s Court of the State of New York, Duchess County.

23. The grant of 9th May, 2018 suggested that the estate of James Vincent Sheridan

amounted to €2,898,406. It will be recalled that the original grant of letters of

administration intestate to Pauline Sheridan showed the value of James Vincent

Sheridan’s estate as IR£11.00. John Sheridan claimed to have uncovered new evidence

and in support of his application for letters of administration filed an affidavit of Fintan

24. Mr. Flannelly, who by then had retired, swore that he was the auditor of CRO 22322 from

1973 and of CRO 148369 from 1989 until about 1993. It will be recalled that it was Mr.

Flannelly who made the several companies office returns which identified the director and

shareholder of the companies as “James Vincent Sheridan”. Mr. Flannelly said that he

was introduced to his client as James Vincent Sheridan, but it is perfectly clear, and Mr.

Flannelly acknowledged, that his client was James Valentine Sheridan.

25. Mr. Flannelly in his affidavit asserted a very clear recollection of a transfer “in the late

1980’s/ early 90’s of … IR£2,112,210 in the name of James Vincent Sheridan being

transferred from AIB Manhattan, New York, to the AIB Bank account of the companies

(CRO 22322 and 148369) at both Crumlin Cross in Dublin 12 and AIB Rathgar, Dublin 6,

along with smaller transfers in the sum of IR£80,000 and IR£90,0000 . . .” but,

unsurprisingly, there was not a shred of evidence in support of that assertion. In any

event, the stated purpose of those alleged transfers was said to have been director’s

loans from “James Vincent Sheridan’s account in Poughkeepsie, New York”. The James

Vincent Sheridan referred to by Mr. Flannelly can only have been the person known to Mr.

Flannelly as James Vincent Sheridan, and who in fact was James Valentine Sheridan.

However confused Mr. Flannelly (and Mr. Sheridan) may have been, nothing that

happened at any time after 1972 or 1973 when Mr. Flannelly was first introduced to

James Valentine Sheridan can have had anything to do with James Vincent Sheridan who

26. If further proof was required of the hopelessness of John Sheridan’s case, the Revenue

affidavit Form A3C which was filed in support of his application for a grant of letters of

administration of the un-administered estate of his late brother suggested that €950,000

of the €2,898,406 represented the the estimated market value of the house 229, Sea

Park, Malahide, Co. Dublin which was bought by James Valentine Sheridan in 1972, the

year after James Vincent Sheridan died. Following the death of James Valentine

Sheridan on 2nd September, 2008 the house in Malahide devolved to his widow, Helen

Sheridan, who was registered as the owner of the property on 2nd March, 2017. The

house in Malahide could not conceivably have been part of the estate of James Vincent

27. In the meantime, by notice of motion issued on 11th April, 2017 John Sheridan applied to

the High Court for an order pursuant to s. 738 of the Companies Act, 2014 to restore

Emerald Contract Cleaners Limited, CRO 22322, to the register. The application was

marked as a creditor’s application and the grounding affidavit told the well-worn tale that

James Vincent Sheridan had been allotted shares and had been appointed a director of

the company three or four years after he had died, and that a revenue audit in 1993

showed that IR£2,112,210 had been loaned to the company by James Vincent Sheridan.

The affidavit referred to another action 2008 No. 8715P by which Pauline Sheridan was

said to have sought a declaration that James Vincent Sheridan was not and never was a

28. The 2018 restoration application was made on notice to Helen Sheridan, who resisted it.

An unfortunate summons server was sent on a wild goose chase to Whitehall Road West

looking for the building in which the company had last carried on business nearly thirty

29. Following a protracted exchange of affidavits the motion was listed for hearing before

McDonald J. on 20th July, 2018 but collapsed when, following the opening, Mr. Sheridan

applied for an adjournment: which McDonald J. granted upon terms that he pay the costs

thrown away. The motion came back into the list for hearing before McDonald J. on 16th

30. By this action, commenced by plenary summons issued on 11th September, 2018 the

plaintiff claims that Allied Irish Banks plc has “neglected to recognise [his] standing as

executor of Pauline Sheridan and the administrator of the estate of James Vincent

Sheridan”. The general endorsement of claim asserts that the cause of action is

negligence, but the relief claimed is an order “directing Allied Irish Banks plc to release

documents/records to the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of James Vincent

31. On 2nd October, 2018 the plaintiff served a form of “Notice of Claim” in more or less the

same terms, adding that he had new evidence, specifically, an affidavit from a relevant

person, the auditor and accountant of both CRO 22322 and CRO 148369. He asserted

that the bank had refused to provide him with records of both companies and of James

Vincent Sheridan as it did not recognise his standing as a director of both companies “as

ordered by Justice Mella Carroll” and claimed an order directing the bank to provide him

with all documents and records in relation to the accounts of the two companies and the

personal accounts of James Vincent Sheridan in AIB Manhattan and AIB Ireland. On the

following day, 3rd October, 2018 the plaintiff issued a motion seeking an order for

32. In answer to the plaintiff’s motion for discovery an affidavit of Tom Durkan was filed on

behalf of the defendant on 10th December, 2018. Mr. Durkan, the manager of the AIB

Bank branch at Rathgar, had companies office searches carried out and resurrected the

correspondence between the defendant and Pauline Sheridan in 2004, in the course of

which the bank had been provided with copies of the orders of Carroll J. made in 2001

and 2002. The point was made that the refusal by Carroll J. to enjoin the plaintiff from

holding himself out as a director or shareholder did not mean that he was in fact a

director and shareholder: and as far as the bank was concerned he was neither. Mr.

Durkan was also able to say that there was no AIB branch in New York until 1977, six

33. On 21st February, 2019 the plaintiff and his brother, Patrick Francis Sheridan, filed Forms

B10 in the companies registration office which suggested that they had been directors of

CRO 148369 since 5th November, 2002 and listing among their other directorships CRO

34. In February, 2019 the plaintiff delivered a form of statement of claim in this action,

again asserting his entitlement to all of the accounts and documentation of both

companies and claiming a declaration that the defendant has refused to accept his legal

standing, and a declaration that the defendant has no duty of confidentiality to its

35. On 23rd January, 2019 the plaintiff commenced proceedings against Emerald Contract

Cleaners (Ireland) Limited, CRO 148369, and its officers claiming a declaration that the

defendants had willingly and knowingly used the name of James Vincent Sheridan in

matters relating to both companies; a declaration that funds were incorrectly transferred

from an account in the name of James Vincent Sheridan into a company account in

Ireland; and a declaration that the defendants had caused unjust loss to the estate and

assets of James Vincent Sheridan: and on 12th February, 2019 the plaintiff issued a

motion seeking a Mareva order against the defendants. The defendants countered with

an application for an order dismissing the action as frivolous and vexatious and bound to

36. The plaintiff’s motion for discovery in these proceedings, the plaintiff’s motion in the

action against CRO 148369 and its officers for a Mareva injunction, and the defendants’

motion to strike out those proceedings were listed for hearing together before me on 30th

37. I heard the plaintiff’s discovery motion first and for the reasons given in an ex tempore

judgment refused it. I found that the motion was misconceived. The action was an

action for discovery, which is not permitted by law, and that the motion sought on an

interlocutory basis what was the substantive relief claimed by the action. In any event,

James Vincent Sheridan, late of 230 Honey Lane, Poughkeepsie, New York, who died on

20th December, 1971 aged nineteen years, could not possibly have been - and on the

plaintiff’s case was not - the subject of the companies office filings from 1975 on which

38. I next heard the application by CRO 148369 and its officers to strike out that action, and

for the reasons given in an ex tempore judgment I acceded to it and made an Isaac

Wunder order restraining any further proceedings without the prior leave of the High

Court. I found that that action was frivolous on the ground that it had no reasonable

prospect of success and vexatious in that there was an inherent hardship on those

defendants in having to defend a claim that could not succeed. The plaintiff’s motion for

39. There was no appeal against the judgments and orders of 30th May, 2019 but on 26th

July, 2019 the plaintiff applied for leave to bring against CRO 148369 and its officers the

same action as had been struck out. For the reasons given in a written judgment

delivered on 28th August, 2019 Sheridan v. Emerald Contract Cleaners (Ireland) Limited

[2019] IEHC 628 I refused that application. The affidavit of the plaintiff on which the ex

parte application was grounded disclosed that on 6th July, 2019 – only five weeks after

his action had been dismissed as frivolous and vexatious - the plaintiff had made a

complaint to An Garda Síochána at Bray, County Wicklow that the estate of James Vincent

Sheridan had been “fraudulently stolen by misrepresentation and misappropriated” by the

defendants in that action. In the hope of forestalling a further waste of public money, I

asked my registrar to send a copy of that judgment to the Garda Superintendent in Bray.

40. I accept the submission of Ms. Julia Lawlor for the defendant that the jurisdiction of the

High Court to order discovery in an action the sole object of which is to obtain discovery is

limited and is to be exercised sparingly. See Megaleasing U.K. Limited v. Barrett

[1993] I.L.R.M. 497, Doyle v. Commissioner of An Garda Síochána (Unreported, High Court, 27th

August, 1997, Laffoy J.) (Unreported, Supreme Court, 22nd July, 1998) and Blythe v.

Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2019] IEHC 854. The discovery sought by the

plaintiff against Allied Irish Banks plc is not laid upon the clear and unambiguous

establishment of wrongdoing or limited or directed to establishing the identity of a

wrongdoer. It is true that the summons and statement of claim assert that the cause of

action against the defendant is negligence, but the only relief sought is discovery.

41. In Ewing v. Ireland [2013] IESC 44 the Supreme Court endorsed the approval by the High

Court in Riordan v. Ireland (No. 5) [2001] 4 I.R. 463 of the six indicia of vexatious

proceedings identified in the Canadian cases of Dykun v. Odishaw (Unreported, Alberta

Court of Queen’s Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, 3rd August, 2000) and Re Lang

Michener and Fablan (1987) D.L.R. (4th) 685, amongst which are the bringing of one or

more actions to determine an issue which had already been determined by a court of

competent jurisdiction; cases where it is obvious that the action cannot succeed, or that

no reasonable person could reasonably expect to obtain relief; cases where the action is

brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other

parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of

legitimate rights; and where issues are rolled forward into subsequent actions and

repeated and supplemented. I accept Ms. Lawlor’s submission that this action against

42. James Vincent Sheridan, late of 230 Honey Lane, Poughkeepsie, New York, who had a

short and sheltered life and who died in a road accident on 20th December, 1971 aged

nineteen years, was never a director or shareholder of Emerald Contract Cleaners Limited,

which was incorporated in Dublin when he was thirteen years old and was dormant until

after he died. He could not possibly have been - and on the plaintiff’s, case was not - the

subject of the companies office filings from 1975 on which the plaintiff’s case is based.

On the plaintiff’s case, the man who was introduced to Mr. Fintan Flannelly in 1973 was

43. There never was any IR£2,112,210. In the words of McGuinness J., the entire edifice of

the case which she heard in 1996 was built on the fiction that a computer code, 2112210,

used by the revenue in 1993 for checking its programmes represented money.

44. Emerald Contract Cleaners Limited CRO 22322 was struck off the register of companies

and dissolved on 9th April, 1999. The action against Emerald Contract Cleaners (Ireland)

Limited CRO 148369 and its officers has been struck out as an abuse of process. Even if

the law permitted an action against Allied Irish Banks plc for discovery for the purpose of

prosecuting an action against a third party, there is no longer any such purpose.

45. It is well established that the jurisdiction invoked by the defendant will be exercised

sparingly and only in clear cases. See for example Barry v. Buckley [1981] I.R. 306. It is

well established, also, that if there is a deficiency in the case pleaded that is capable of

remedy by amendment, the action should not be dismissed. See for example Sun Fat

Chan v. Osseous Ltd. [1992] 1 I.R. 425. For the reasons given, I am satisfied that the

case is hopeless and that the statement of claim is irremediable.

46. I am satisfied that this is a case which has been shown by the plenary summons and

statement of claim to be frivolous and vexatious and will make an order pursuant to O.

19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts dismissing it.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Sheridan v Allied Irish Banks PLC [2020] IEHC 141 (06 March 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2020/2020IEHC141.html Cite as: [2020] IEHC 141

High Court of Ireland Decisions