Debt is still actionable in equity even where statutory requirements have not been met

Application for summary judgment – Bank seeks summary judgment in the sum of €244,591.69 - defendant argues that the proceedings are not properly constituted - failed to show that it has taken a valid transfer from the original creditor -  Allied Irish Banks plc agreed to lend to the defendant the sum of €240,000 to be secured by a mortgage for a term of 25 years - proceedings have been commenced by AIB Mortgage Bank - failure to give her express written notice of the assignment as is required – whether there a valid assignment - Section 28(6) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877 - no evidence that the debtor ever gave consent to the assignment of the debt - purpose of the subsection -  a debtor must know to whom the debt is due, and from what date a debtor may with certainty pay a debt to an assignee - a general waiver or consent does not of itself therefore operate to obviate the need for proof of notice - whether a debtor may contract out of the requirement for notice of the assignment under the statutory scheme - form of a notice - no particular form of notice is required - notice must be unconditional - authorities suggest that a court will look to the substance and not the form of a notice -  the debtor must be given express notice in writing of an assignment of his debt to another, that other must be identified, and the notice must contain sufficient information to enable the debtor to know with reasonable certainty that the assignment did assign the debt so that he may without acting at his peril pay the debt to the identified assignee – contract provided expressly that her debt and security could be assigned without notice to her and without her concurrence - as a matter of statute a person acquiring that asset from the original owner cannot give a discharge to the defendant nor be capable of suing a common law unless the requirements of s. 28(6) are met – the defendant may not object to the fact that her debt was assigned, but the assignee may not sue her without showing that she was expressly notified of the transaction by which her obligations lay with a new person or entity - wrong to interpret the statutory requirements as imposing technical or procedural requirements which are not therein expressed - the test is in the circumstances of each case whether there was sufficient information to enable the debtor to know not merely that a third party claims to own his debt, and claims to have the right as a matter of law to give a discharge for that debt, but that that party has taken an assignment or assurance of that debt from the party with whom he or she originally contracted - while a notice does not have to be sent with the intention of constituting a statutory notice, a notice must be sufficiently clear as the legislation requires that the notice be express – no adequate notice of the assignment of the debt -  absence of notice does not of itself prevent the assignee from starting the action although in that circumstance he is an equitable assignee – a valid equitable assignment of an existing debt does not require notice to a debtor – not satisfied that there is any legal or practical reason why the assignor was required to join or be joined as a party - debtor was not given sufficient express notice of the assignment of the debt to meet the statutory requirements - equitable assignment may be maintained only by the assignor – debt is one that is actionable in equity - albeit that the debtor was not given sufficient express notice to meet the statutory requirements, the Court is satisfied that the claim of the plaintiff is one that has been validly made and accordingly will enter judgment for the amount claimed.