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.
Borrower has no cause of action against bank
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants bank an order dismissing a borrower's proceedings against it, on the grounds of being frivolous or vexatious, and grants an order of summary judgment against the borrower in the sum of €47,704.46, where the borrower had sought to issue plenary proceedings against the bank seeking damages of €100,000 for engaging in reckless lending practices and engaging in excessive securitisation.
Two sets of proceedings - plaintiff financial institution (the "financial institution") in first set of summary proceedings is the defendant in the second set of plenary proceedings - defendant borrower in first set of proceedings is plaintiff in second set of plenary proceedings - in October 2008, the borrower accepted a housing loan of €107,500 providing security in the form of a legal mortgage over the defendant's legal residence - this was an extension of an existing all sums legal mortgage from August 2003 - borrower failed to comply with the terms of an arrears notice from the financial institution from July 2013 - a receiver was appointed by the financial institution in August 2013 - in June 2014, financial institution issued summary proceedings seeking judgment of €84,439.80 - the borrower then issued plenary proceedings in October 2014 against the financial institution and the receiver for €600,000 damages - the borrower delivered a statement of claim in February 2015 claiming damages of €100,000 - financial institution seeking summary judgment and a dismissal of the borrowers proceedings as they are frivolous, vexatious and disclose no reasonable cause of action - borrower claims for damages arising out of a number of grounds including that the financial institution engaged in reckless lending practices, misled her as to the nature of the agreement and engaged in excessive securitisation - in the High Court in March 2015, the Judge directed that the two cases be listed and heard together - in a dismissal application the onus lies on the defendant concerned to establish that the plaintiffs claim is bound to fail - no civil wrong of reckless lending in this jurisdiction - nothing unusual or mysterious about securitisation - obligation to repay financial institution remains in full force and effect whether the bank is solvent or insolvent - deed of appointment of receiver was executed in accordance with s. 24 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881 - no grounds to point that receiver pursued a quick sale - matter should not go to plenary hearing - final judgment should be entered against borrower in €47,704.46 when proceeds of sale of property have been applied.
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.
