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 |
Court of Appeal, in proceedings brought on foot of three special summonses seeking well charging orders over the homes of each defendant, considers the issue of whether the trial judge wrongly refused to allow the defendants to cross-examine the bank's deponent on his affidavit, and dismisses appeals, on the grounds that: the defendants had seven months to consider whether they wanted to cross-examine, and could have elected to do so without leave, but instead they agreed with the bank’s estimate of a two day trial on affidavit; and therefore it is difficult to see how any complaint of unfairness to the defendants can legitimately be made, even had they disclosed a basis for the cross examination sought.
Litigation relating to loans advanced by the respondent (“the bank”) to the appellants, who are three brothers - proceedings brought on foot of three special summonses seeking well charging orders over the homes of each defendant, and in addition, in the case of Brian McDonagh, an order for sale - bank’s grounding affidavit sworn by Ted Mahon, a senior manager - central issue arising in appeal is a claim by the McDonaghs that the trial judge wrongly refused to allow them to cross-examine Mr. Mahon on his affidavit - Permanent TSB v Beades - whether the interests of justice required that there should be cross-examination.
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