High Court determines that a bank was entitled to possession of the defendants’ family home and that an order for possession was proportionate in the circumstances, on the grounds that none of the arguments advanced by the defendants were more than bare assertions.
Possession – application for possession of family home - appeal from the Circuit Court – litigants in person – second defendant did not appear – affidavit evidence – objections to the bank’s claim for possession - loan agreements - recommended to the defendants that they seek legal advice - represented by each of the defendants that they had done so – no evidence of undue influence - name of the bank - charge registered over the property - charge registered on the property, which was initially obtained by IIB Homeloans Limited as security for the loans made to the defendants, was lawfully transferred to KBC Bank Ireland plc. – bank is the owner of the aforesaid charge registered over the property – bank has standing - covenants in the charge by the defendants – defendants are in default – demand for payment - fieri fascias order of execution made by High Court – bank previously brought summary proceedings – now seeking possession – demand for possession - evidence of funds available in excess of the outstanding debt – previous solicitors came off record – personal insolvency arrangement - code of conduct on mortgage arrears - no appeal by defendants against bank’s decision that loan account unsustainable – unfair terms - none of the arguments put forward by the defendants could properly be called anything more than bare assertions – Court satisfied that the making of the order for possession sought by the bank would be proportionate in all the circumstances – monies held by previous solicitor to be paid to the second defendant – bank entitled to possession –