Matters borrower wishes to raise in cross-examination do not relate to issues of fact between parties

Bank (Plaintiff) seeks order setting-aside borrower's (Defendant's) notice to cross-examine bank employee -proceedings brought by way of special summons - O. 1, r. 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - Plaintiff seeks order pursuant to s. 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 for possession of lands in Galway and Dublin - premises are investment properties, not family homes - special summons issued on the 10th April 2015 - Plaintiff loaned money to Defendant in 2007 - advanced the sum of €543,450.00 on 30th April 2007 - Dublin and Galway properties secured by mortgage indenture - default would occur if Plaintiff missed two monthly re-payments - Plaintiff claims Defendant has failed to re-pay loans since December 2013 - by April 2015 the sum of €636,662.60 was said to be due and owing - in September 2015 the Defendant requested that the Plaintiff provide him with an affidavit verifying the original documents in the case, including the signed loan application, the signed loan offer agreement, the deed of mortgage and charge, or a date upon these documents might be forensically assessed by his experts - Plaintiff offered to allow Defendant to view original documents with an expert and sought to arrange a suitable date - Defendant rejected this offer and repeated his demand for an affidavit - Defendant then purported to rescind the contract between the parties because of the Plaintiff's refusal - grounds put forward for rescission are incorrect as a matter of law - proceedings then issued by Plaintiff - Defendant does not deny borrowing money, signing contracts in presence of his lawyer, including mortgage, does not deny using money borrowed to purchase properties - Defendant says that he cannot recall signing contractual documents - Plaintiff claims that application for credit form is forged - his solicitor who was present at this point has not be called to give evidence - despite this Defendant alleges fraud, perjury, incompetence and other scandalous matters against bank official - Defendant has sought to cross-examine bank official - bank official in question has not given evidence on affidavit - application to cross-examine not in accordance with rules and is out of the prescribed time - Court finds that none of the issues on which the Defendant wishes to cross-examine are facts at issue in proceedings - issues cited by Defendant more closely resemble legal submissions - while Defendant is entitled to cross-examine, Court is not required to permit it in all circumstances - Court is not required to permit it where subject matter of cross-examination does not relate to issues in the case and where it would amount to abuse of process - no issues of fact emerge and the Defendant wishes to traverse topics that are plainly scandalous, frivolous and vexatious - Court also addresses Defendant's argument that the refusal of the Plaintiff's deponent to be cross-examined means that her affidavit cannot be relied on without "special leave of the Court" - Court cites High Court authority to the effect that "special" does not mean that leave will only be granted in exceptional or unusual circumstances: the term means that application for leave must be made on notice to all parties in proceedings.