Order for possession upheld where numerous technical arguments raised are without merit

Order for possession granted – appealed – substance of the claim accepted, defendant advances technical arguments – argues civil bill fails to expressly invoke Section 62(7) – no need for a ritualistic incantation of 62(7) to invoke it – no requirement in the rules to do so in providing all relevant information – argues Circuit Court had no jurisdiction for possession orders between 2002 and 2017 as a result of the Valuation Act 2001 – overlooks Section 67 of that – argument rejected by Supreme Court – argues principal private residence is not defined in 2013 Act and so Circuit Court has no jurisdiction – argument rejected by McGrath J in High Court – argues violation of Family Home Protection Act – does not apply here and argument would not be for defendant to make – argues non compliance with Code of Compliance – does not apply to possession proceedings – argues plaintiff bank did not have authorisation from Central Bank at appropriate time – must be established in evidence and is not – argues proceedings were not properly served – incorrect – argues contract fails due to failure to specify which specific ECB interest rate is referred to – overestimates significance of ECB interest rate to contract – argues amendment of Circuit Court Order renders decision invalid – incorrect and defendant relied on the order to appeal it – argues contract contains unfair terms – incorrect – argues no formal demand for payment was made – incorrect – argues plaintiff bank is precluded from seeking possession where beneficial interest has been transferred elsewhere – incorrect – argues proceedings should be amended to reflect the plaintiff bank being made a DAC – unnecessary – argues 2013 Act is unconstitutional – cannot be made on appeal, should have come before the High Court separately – no grounds for refusing order – Circuit Court order for possession affirmed