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.
Order for possession of property upheld where defendant failed to make out an arguable ground of defence in relation to the transfer of the loan and mortgage and change of title
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court dismisses appeal and upholds a decision of the Circuit Court granting an order for possession of a property, on the grounds that: (a) the defendant failed to make out an arguable ground of defence in relation to the transfer of the loan and mortgage and change of title; (b) the Court was satisfied that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter as the property was the defendant's principal private residence; (c) the defendant failed to raise an arguable ground that any of the terms of the contract were unfair; (d) the Consumer Rights Directive does not apply to these types of contracts and therefore the defendant could not cancel the contract under this Directive; (e) the defendant did not establish any procedural unfairness in the use of summary proceedings; and (f) the plaintiff complied with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears.
Appeal of a decision of the Circuit Court granting an order for possession of the appellant's property - the plaintiff’s predecessor in title agreed to advance €340,000 to the defendants - the plaintiff maintains that the loan and security were transferred to it following a change of name of the predecessor in title - 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 - whether there was a valid transfer of title or of the loan or mortgage - whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear the application as the defendant argued that the the property is not his principal private residence but was rather his permanent place of abode - contract contains unfair terms in breach of the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 27/1995) - whether the defendant was entitled to cancel the contract pursuant to the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EC - whether the plaintiff complied with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears - the plaintiff established its entitlement to possession of the premises and the defendant failed to make out any arguable grounds of defence - appeal refused.
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.
