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

The Italian Supreme Court (5 July 2016, No. 13719) issues a maiden decision on the conditions for theprotection afforded by restructuring plan to stand if the plan fails and bankruptcy is declared

The case

The Court of Cassation (13 June 2016, No. 12120) confirmed that a limited liability company can bedeclared bankrupt, if it is found that the company is a partner of an insolvent de facto partnership

The case

The Court of Trento (3 May 2016) ruled that the judicial liquidator of the concordato is entitled to bring aclaim against directors and statutory auditors, although the claim is not considered by the liquidationplan and has not been approved by the shareholders of the company

The Case

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:

In early 2016, the Government commissioned an examination into laws protecting employees following the overnight closure of the historic Clerys department store in Dublin in June 2015, with the immediate loss of 460 jobs. We review the recently published report which sets out six key proposals for legislative reform.

The Court of Cassation (29 March 2016, No. 6045) ruled that the look-­back period for claw-­back actionsstarts from the concordato filing, when bankruptcy was declared after a period of time, provided thatboth procedures refer to the same insolvency situation

The case

The Court of Bolzano (5 April 2016) confirms that revolving credit facility agreements providing forancillary set-off and collection terms in favour of the bank can be suspended, but the bank is protectedbecause the amounts collected are controlled by the Judicial Commissioner

The case

The Court of Modena (8 February 2016) challenged precedents of the Court of Cassation ruling thatdelayed payment of secured creditors is allowed only if the timing would not be shorter in bankruptcyliquidation

The case