The High Court has held that disclosure of debts and undertakings given to the Circuit Court in seeking a protective certificate for a personal insolvency arrangement can be relied on in other proceedings.
Background
The McLaughlins were engaged in a long running saga of litigation with Bank of Scotland plc (“BOS”) and, after a loan sale, Ennis Property Finance Limited (“Ennis”).
In 2016 they issued High Court proceedings against Ennis and Tom Kavanagh (the “Plenary Proceedings”).
Summary
This matter related to a High Court appeal brought by two high profile debtors against a Circuit Court order made in favour of Tanager Designated Activity Company (Tanager) which allowed Tanager to enforce an order for possession notwithstanding the fact that a protective certificate was in place in respect of the debtors.
Credit servicing firms, the Bankers' Book Evidence Acts 1879-1959 (“BBEA”), and the evidential requirements of an application for summary judgment were recently considered by the High Court in Promomtoria (Aran) Ltd v Burns. 1 The decision issued by Noonan J shows a practical use of Order 37 of the Rules of the Superior Courts in managing evidential requirements, where the BBEA cannot be utilised.
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
A recent Supreme Court decision looked at the effect of non-registration of the change of ownership of a charge on its enforcement.
Borrowers are increasingly seeking to challenge or frustrate the validity of an appointment of a receiver on technical grounds. While each case will be determined on its own merits and facts, a recent decision of the High Court is illustrative of the Court’s attitude towards some such arguments.
Recent attempts by Bank of Scotland plc. to enforce its security over the company operating Foley’s Bar and O’Reilly’s Bar in Dublin city centre have been frustrated following various challenges in the High Court culminating in the appointment of an examiner.
Bank of Scotland plc. appointed a receiver to The Belohn Limited, the company operating the two bars, in October 2012. The Belohn Limited and its parent company, Merrow Limited, are reported to owe the bank in the region of €4 million and €1 million respectively.
The facts:
An application had been made by Bank of Scotland Plc and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland (the Applicants) for a letter of request to be sent by the Royal Court of Jersey to the High Court of England and Wales in respect of four Jersey companies which were ultimate beneficial owners of English real estate.
An application had been made by the Bank of Scotland Plc and the governor and company of the Bank of Ireland for a letter of request to be sent by the Royal Court of Jersey to the High Court of England and Wales in respect of four Jersey companies that were ultimate beneficial owners of English real estate.
Rayford Homes granted security to two lenders, its trustee shareholder and the Bank of Scotland (BoS). The parties entered into an intercreditor agreement (ICA) using the BoS standard form. In a schedule to that agreement was a definition of the term ‘BoS Priority’ over ‘BoS Debt’ up to a monetary limit. The amount was not filled in, nor was the term ‘BoS priority’ actually used in the ICA.