Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Challenge to substitution of lender in possession proceedings refused following sale of loan assets
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused an appeal against an order substituting a new plaintiff in ongoing possession proceedings concerning registered land. The original plaintiff’s business and related loan assets had been transferred to another finance company, which then sought to be substituted as plaintiff in place of the original lender. The court found there was sufficient evidence of a valid transfer, including notice to the defendant and registration of the assignment, and that any substantive defences available to the defendant in the possession case before the Circuit Court remained unaffected by this procedural ruling. Concerns raised by the defendant regarding document redactions and hearsay were dismissed, as the court was satisfied the redactions were reasonable and did not prejudice the defendant’s rights.
substitution of plaintiff – possession proceedings – registered land – transfer of loan assets – mortgage lender – Order 22 rule 4 of the Circuit Court Rules – assignment of security – procedural application – defendant’s right to argue substantive issues – redacted documents – civil bill – notice of assignment – hearsay objections
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
