The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform (Amendment) Bill 2019 (the “Bill”) proposes to broaden the factors that the courts can consider in refusing orders for possession sought by lenders.

The Bill has its roots in the Keeping People in their Homes Bill, 2018, introduced by Kevin “Boxer” Moran T.D., as a private member’s bill. However, the Bill does not go as far as Mr Moran’s bill and, for instance, does not require disclosure of the price paid by a purchaser of the loan.

Background

Overall 2018 has produced a number of positive judgments from the perspective of lenders and insolvency practitioners.

In particular, the courts delivered many useful judgments disposing of numerous challenges to the enforceability of loans and security and, also, restricting abuse of the courts’ processes.

Contemptuous McKenzie Friends

The Court of Appeal has helpfully confirmed that a judgment creditor can seek an order appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution where:

• the debtor holds a legal or equitable interest in property; and
• execution against the property is not available at law by one of the usual methods, for instance via the sheriff or by a garnishee order.

There was previously doubt as to whether such a receiver could be appointed where the debtor held a legal, as opposed to an equitable interest, in property.

The High Court has recently expressed concern that distressed borrowers are being duped into paying money to the anonymous promoters of schemes, which purport to protect them from enforcement by lenders but are actually ‘utterly misguided and spurious’.

There are a number of schemes being promoted at the moment that supposedly protect borrowers in arrears from enforcement by their lender.

On 3 June 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that a valid right of pledge can be established on goods that are delivered subject to retention of title (of ownership). If the buyer is declared bankrupt, the conditional ownership can become an unconditional ownership if the condition precedent is fulfilled (mostly full payment of the purchase price). Next to the buyer, the pledgee can also fulfil this condition. As a consequence, these goods are not part of the bankrupt estate, so that the pledgee can take recourse against these goods.

The facts

Op 3 juni 2016 heeft de Hoge Raad geoordeeld dat er een geldig pandrecht kan worden gevestigd op zaken die onder eigendomsvoorbehoud zijn geleverd aan de koper. Indien de koper failliet wordt verklaard, kan het voorwaardelijke eigendomsrecht uitgroeien tot een onvoorwaardelijk eigendomsrecht door vervulling van de voorwaarde jegens de verkoper (veelal volledige betaling van de koopsom). Ook de pandhouder kan deze voorwaarde vervullen. Het gevolg hiervan is dat genoemde zaken niet in de faillissementsboedel vallen, maar dat de pandhouder hier verhaal op kan nemen.

Het is pandhouders op grond van artikel 3:246 lid 1 Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW) toegestaan om een pandrecht op vorderingen uit te winnen door middel van het opeisen van de vordering. Deze bevoegdheid omvat tevens het recht om zekerheidsrechten uit te winnen die aan de verpande vordering zijn verbonden. Dit is bevestigd in een arrest van de Hoge Raad van 18 december 2015 (ABN AMRO / Marell).

Feiten

Pursuant to Article 3:246 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) pledgees have the power to enforce their right of pledge on receivables by claiming (direct) payment of the receivable. This power also includes the right to enforce rights of pledge that in their turn have been granted as security for the repayment of the pledged receivable. The Supreme Court confirmed this in its judgement of 18 December 2015 (ABN AMRO / Marell).

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

Het hof Amsterdam heeft in het voorjaar van 2016 een uitspraak gedaan over het ontstaansmoment van vorderingen van zorgaanbieders op patiënten en/of zorgverzekeraars. Het ontstaansmoment van een vordering is relevant om in geval van een faillissement van de pandgever te kunnen bepalen of een vordering (reeds) bestond – en dus geldig kan zijn verpand – of dat een vordering nog niet bestond – en dus niet geldig kan zijn verpand.

Feitencomplex