Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants a bank an order for possession of property, on the grounds, inter alia, that: a lease which the defendant had granted to a third party was void as against the plaintiff bank in circumstances where there is nothing to suggest it had consented to the lease; and the onus of proving that a mortgagee had consented to a lease which contravened a mortgage lies with the party seeking to rely upon the terms of the lease.
Plaintiff bank seeks recovery of land pursuant to mortgage – debt outstanding – no appearance entered from defendant despite personal service – plaintiff bank entitled to order for possession of land – defendant had granted a lease to a third party – consent of bank not required under statute at the time to give lease but requirement was implemented in contract – rationality that plaintiff bank must consent to any potential impediment to security – lease void against bank.
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.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now