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.
Substitution of plaintiff in debt recovery case affirmed
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court has refused to set aside an Ex Parte order substituting one financial institution for another as the plaintiff in ongoing debt recovery proceedings. The court found no abuse of process in maintaining separate High Court and Circuit Court proceedings, as they seek different reliefs based on the same loan facilities. The court also dismissed the defendant's claim of inordinate and inexcusable delay, noting that while the delay was acknowledged, it did not result in prejudice that would justify striking out the case. The defendant retains the right to oppose any future application to re-enter the proceedings, which have been dormant since 2010.
Substitution order, debt recovery, abuse of process, inordinate delay, ex parte application, Allied Irish Banks, Everyday Finance DAC, High Court proceedings, Circuit Court proceedings, mortgage possession, summary summons, prima facie evidence, loan facilities transfer, application to re-enter, res judicata, Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013, non-disclosure, uberrima fides (utmost good faith), Primor test, access to justice.
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.
