Court’s role is not to make value judgment as to whether it was reasonable for bank to refuse a settlement offer

Appeal of order made by the Circuit Court – refusal to grant bank an order for possession – order made to reflect the change of name of the bank in the title of the proceedings – de novo hearing – mortgage – security – covenants for payment – mortgagee powers exercised in the event of default of payment or breach of any covenant, condition or agreement contained in the mortgage or any offer letter or other credit agreement – possession pursuant to Order 5(B) of the Rules of the Circuit Court – Registration of Title Act 1964 – Conveyancing Acts 1881-1911 – Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 as amended – no dispute that the defendant has failed to pay – change to interest only payment – Mortgage Accounts System contain all details of the defendant’s liabilities – electronic format – refusal to offer an Alternative Repayment Arrangement after the mortgage reverted to full repayment – Code of Conduct allegedly not complied with – open offer declined - submitted that the bank’s decision not to offer an ARA was unreasonable and unconscionable having regard to the level of debt and the defendant’s personal circumstances – debtor engaged with the bank at all times – personal circumstances of the defendant – health concerns – breach of CCMA disentitled bank to any relief – correspondence evidence of compliance with clause 45 of the CCMA – moratorium – having regard to the evidence the monies are secured and are due – defendant has not advanced a stateable defence in law or in fact in respect of the plaintiff’s claim – it is clear from the correspondence that the bank did explore alternatives with the defendant – the Court cannot make value judgment as to the reasonableness of proposals made – grant an order for possession and a six month stay on the order.