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.
Application to dismiss repossession proceedings on technical grounds is misconceived
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of two motions arising from repossession proceedings dealt with by the High Court, finding that: a) the motion to attach and commit the appellant for his failure to hand over possession was for all practical purposes moot since the receiver has by now taken possession of the property; and b) application to dismiss the proceedings on the basis that all the affidavits that have been sworn by or on behalf of the receiver are not in compliance with the Rules of the Superior Courts was misconceived in that any breaches were purely technical in nature, and therefore not in breach of the rules.
Practice and procedure – receivership – notice of motion issued by the plaintiff receiver seeking to attach and commit the appellant for his failure to comply with an order of the High Court – motion to attach and commit the appellant for his failure to hand over possession is now for all practical purposes moot since the receiver has by now taken possession of the Dundrum property – application to remove counsel retained by the solicitors acting for the receiver – application to prohibit sale of Dundrum property and adjourn proceedings – application that “the matter” be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and/or the Garda Fraud Squad for a criminal investigation – Ord. 40, r. 6 RSC – application to dismiss the proceedings on the basis that all the affidavits that have been sworn by or on behalf of the receiver are not in compliance with the Rules of the Superior Courts – issue as to failure of the commissioner for oaths to state the time of day in the jurat – reliefs sought refused.
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.
