The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 has undoubtedly strengthened the position of tenants and increased the responsibilities and challenges facing receivers appointed by secured lenders over residential investment properties. While the added protections for tenants are to be welcomed, certain provisions of the Act result in relatively onerous obligations on receivers who are already faced with practical difficulties when seeking to deal with and realise the secured asset in accordance with their duties.
The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.
In McCarthy v Murphy,[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.
Background
Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:
In AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Toole & anor [2016] IEHC 368 the High Court determined that a bank was not prevented from relying on a mortgage as security for all sums due by the defendants, despite issuing a redemption statement which omitted this fact.
In order to understand this case, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events:
The European Court of Justice has held that a director of an English company can be liable for breach of German company law where insolvency proceedings are opened in Germany.
In a recent High Court decision, the validity of the appointment of joint receivers by ACC Loan Management Limited by deed under seal was upheld, and an order for possession in favour of those receivers was made.
Bankruptcy law in Ireland is now, broadly speaking, in line with that of the United Kingdom.
In particular, for bankrupts who cooperate with the bankruptcy process:
- bankruptcy will end in one year; and
- their interest in their family home will re-vest in them after 3 years.
Notably however, the courts will have discretion to extend the period of bankruptcy for up to 15 years for non-cooperative individuals and those who have concealed or transferred assets to the detriment of creditors.
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has held that depositor protection provisions in Cayman Islands law only apply in respect of depositors with deposits of CI$20,000 (US$24,400) or less.1 Depositors with more than CI$20,000 on deposit do not benefit from such provisions at all, even for their first CI$20,000. This means that, for persuasive policy reasons, the position in the Cayman Islands differs from the position in the EU under the deposit guarantee scheme.
A number of recent High Court cases have highlighted the difficulties being faced by receivers in taking possession of agricultural lands. This is a critical issue for receivers who are being faced with mounting costs and delay as a result of the actions of uncooperative borrowers and / or their agents. The cases have highlighted the potential need for greater judicial resources and better and more vigorous case management.
Receivers appointed over agricultural lands are increasingly resorting to the High Court in order to:
A recent decision of the Grand Court, Primeo Fund (in official liquidation) v Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation)1, is another win for investor certainty in the Cayman Islands. In previous updates, we have written about Cayman Islands and BVI decisions which illustrate the various challenges associated with bringing clawback actions in the Cayman Islands against innocent arm's length mutual fund investors who have validly redeemed their shares.2 That message has been further reinforced, on different grounds, by Jones J in P