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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by two borrowers against a High Court order granting summary judgment to the bank for the principal sum outstanding on a mortgage loan, and allowed the bank’s cross-appeal for summary judgment in respect of interest. The borrowers argued that an alleged change in the European Central Bank Main Refinancing Operations Minimum Bid Rate meant no further interest could be charged after October 2008, as well as raising issues of alleged Bank delay and overcharging connected to other loan accounts. The Court found these arguments amounted to mere assertions unsupported by credible evidence or expert testimony, and noted that any overcharging in respect of other accounts was addressed through redress schemes and was unrelated to the loan at issue. The application to dismiss the bank’s claim for delay was rejected as it had not been properly brought before the High Court. Finding the bank was entitled to summary judgment on both capital and interest, the Court affirmed the High Court’s order as to principal and set aside the order for a plenary hearing on interest, granting judgment in full to the bank.
mortgage loan – summary judgment – appeal dismissed – cross-appeal allowed – European Central Bank Main Refinancing Operations Minimum Bid Rate – tracker mortgage – overcharging – counterclaim – statute of limitations – application to dismiss for delay – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – High Court decision affirmed – interest calculation dispute – expert evidence – bona fide defence – costs – Central Bank Tracker Mortgage Examination
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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.