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 allows appeal against order of the Circuit Court dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for an order of possession of the defendant’s family home, holding that there was no arguable defence disclosed, on the grounds that: (a) the court could not accept the proposition that the defendant was never made aware of the interest rate that applied to his account; (b) the plaintiff had appointed a credit intermediary that was subject to statutory regulation by the Central Bank, so there was nothing approaching an actual unfairness in the contractual arrangements and certainly nothing that would have any bearing on an event of default giving rise to a right to seek possession on the part of the plaintiff; and (c) the statutory requirements were satisfied as to notice in writing of the assignment of the charge.
Appeal of Circuit Court order dismissing plaintiff’s claim for possession - property in question the defendant's family home - original lender was Irish bank - subsequent cross-border merger pursuant to the European Communities (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2008 of Ireland and the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007 of the UK - all assets and liabilities of Irish bank transferred to UK bank - UK bank subsequently sold portfolio of securities to the plaintiff including the defendant’s mortgage and charge - original claim that as UK bank was never registered as owner of the charge, it was not entitled to transfer or assign the charge to the plaintiff - High Court stated a case on this point and Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant was not entitled to raise this issue in these proceedings - whether plaintiff purported to apply an interest rate to the defendant’s borrowing which had been neither notified nor consented to by the defendant - whether the effect of the assignment from UK bank to the plaintiff was to transfer the defendant’s charge from a regulated to an unregulated entity and had the effect of depriving the defendant of the benefit of statutory protections - European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995 - whether debt not enforceable as defendant was not given notice in writing of the assignment.
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 subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now