Bank granted order for possession of multiple properties

Application by bank for order of possession of four specified properties mortgaged to it by the defendants - plaintiff obtained order for judgment against defendants in 2011 for €17,422,790.22 in High Court summary proceedings - in letter of November 2013, bank demanded repayment of €21,154,079.30, being the amount owed plus interest - plaintiff omitted to serve notice of discontinuance in first set of proceedings, Master of High Court made order striking out the special summons - the Master's order was appealed to the High Court and the judge reinstated the special summons and refused a stay upon the determination - the first named defendant applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay but his application was struck out as the plaintiff gave an undertaking it would not attempt to enforce the order pending the determination of the defendant's appeal - defendants filed affidavits two weeks after date directed by High Court judge, the day before these proceedings - issue of defendant's liability in respect of the loan liabilities already determined against the defendants by High Court - counsel for first named defendant submitted that since loans were subject to securitisation, the bank would not be entitled to enforce them - nothing unusual about a securitisation scheme - plaintiff remains legal owner of charge retaining powers of a legal chargee including right of possession - second defendant claimed mortgage deeds were invalid due to failure to comply with the requirements of the Family Home Protection Act 1976 (the Act) - counsel submitted that the bank did not obtain her consent to the mortgaging of the property which the defendants were calling their primary family residence - the Act was enacted to confer upon a non-owning spouse the right to veto any disposition of the family home not made in accordance with the Act - second named defendant was co-owner of property - plaintiff did not have to comply with Code of Conduct of Mortgage Arrears, 2010 as loans were for the express purposes of acquiring properties for development - averment that primary residence was a family home did not apply as residence in question had been damaged by fire in 2009 and was uninhabitable - financial institution registered owner of registered charge - plaintiff's power of sale had arisen - failure by plaintiff to comply with prior demand for possession - first set of proceedings equivalent to demand for possession - property in vacant possession preferable - plaintiff complied with Rules of Superior Courts - order for possession granted.