Notwithstanding the phased return to some level of normality, some businesses will continue to be significantly affected, particularly those in the leisure, travel/tourism, retail and hospitality sectors. These sectors will face longer term challenges due to social distancing requirements, consumer unease and the likely absence of international travel for many months, or perhaps even longer. However, these are not the only sectors that will suffer.

The default setting for the hearing of many contested debt recovery and security enforcement cases is by way of affidavit evidence, particularly in the High Court[1]. The creditor swears an affidavit setting out the reasons why it maintains the court should rule in its favour. Certain documents can be presented as exhibits that back up its case such as a contract.

Bankruptcy law has always sought to strike a balance between the rights of creditors and debtors. In Ireland, bankruptcy and personal insolvency law has incurred seismic change over the past decade. Many of the legislative changes have been implemented from a policy basis of assisting the debtor. We look at recent developments, from the point of view of the petitioning creditor in any bankruptcy.

Automatic discharge from bankruptcy

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

Further evidence that Ireland is emerging from economic recession can be seen in the publication of the Courts Service Annual Report 2016 (the Report). An examination of the Report’s figures relating to debt collection activity shows a continuing decline in creditor litigation and enforcement. The number of default judgments marked in 2016 across the District, Circuit and High Courts shows a fall to 10,475 from 14,204 during the previous year. This represents almost an 80% drop on the equivalent number of such judgments marked in 2010.

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.

Two recent developments may have rendered the Irish legal system less attractive to creditors. We examine the scope of these developments and the likely impact on debt collection activity in Ireland.

Rate of interest of judgment debts falls by 6%

The rate of interest on judgment debts has been reduced from 8% to 2%, with effect from 1 January 2017, in accordance with the Courts Act 1981 (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 2016 (S.I. No 624 of 2016) (the “Order”).

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) had given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case ofDonnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland (Donnelly) and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond (Dooneen).

As we head into a new Legal Year, we examine recent trends in debt recovery litigation. The Courts Service 2015 Annual Report noted, in the words of Chief Justice Ms. Susan Denham, “another busy year for the courts”. Indeed, the courts received 248,254 new civil cases in 2015, a very marginal decrease from the corresponding 2014 figure.

Default judgments

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