High Court strikes out claim for damages against mortgage lender for alleged excessive securitisation, reckless lending and fraud/misrepresentation against the plaintiff mortgage holder in default, as: a) there is no civil wrong of 'reckless lending' known to law; b) the plaintiff failed to produce any credible evidence of having been induced into the mortgage contract; and c) notwithstanding any arguments surrounding the bank's source of funds, the plaintiff willingly participated in the financial transaction to which he is now in default.
Application to dismiss claim for damages for failure to disclose reasonable cause of action and being bound to fail - whether claim is frivolous or vexatious - plaintiff defaulted on mortgage repayments and receivers appointed over secured property in October 2012 - allegation of breaches of license by defendant, in addition to excessive securitisation and reckless lending practices - jurisdiction to dismiss - Order 19, rule 28 RSC - inherent jurisdiction of court to dismiss - no tort of reckless lending known to law - degree of latitude to litigants in person - whether court's power to dismiss should be used sparingly - claim to be continued on basis of professional negligence and/or contributory negligence - whether bank misrepresented financial situation of plaintiff and further breached consumer protection codes - 'creation of currency' argument without merit - plaintiff willingly participated in financial transaction - no credible evidence that plaintiff was lured into contract with bank - proceedings bound to fail - claim struck out.