Evidence existed to support conclusions of trial judge in granting judgment to bank

Banking law – loan agreement – development of lands at Lindville – whether the common areas of “Lindville” were intended to be included in the security granted by the plaintiff to the bank – whether the defendant solicitors were negligent and/or in breach of duty in failing to notice that the common areas had been included in the plaintiff’s security granted to the bank – whether the bank made a representation to the plaintiff that the bank would fund the plaintiff’s developments through to completion – amalgamation of further loans – whether the bank represented to the plaintiff that he could spend €100,000 to complete one of the houses in Ashley to show - house standard and that the bank would provide funds for same – whether the receivers had a conflict of interest – whether the defendant solicitors failed to properly advise the plaintiff – doctrine of non est factum – appellant’s appeal on the common areas issue rejected – there was evidence which he was entitled to accept which supports the conclusion that he reached – joint receivers – failure to maintain the assets and maximise the rental value – Solicitors (Professional Practice, Conduct and Discipline – Commercial Property Transactions) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 366/2010) – duties owed by solicitors in the provision of services – manner in which services were provided – no conflict of interest actually arose, despite the potential for such a conflict – Consumer Credit Act, 1995 – Consumer Protection Code 2006 – any lis pendens that remains registered against any of the lands forming the bank’s security should be vacated – appeal dismissed.