Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:
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
We recently published an article entitled“Good news for financial institutions seeking to challenge Protective Certificates” which outlined the positive steps taken the High Court to prevent a Debtor from receiving the full benefit of a protective certificate (“PC”) where it would cause irreparable loss to a lending institution.
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
This briefing summarises recent legislation, cases and trends relevant to ongoing efforts to resolve the mortgage arrears crisis.
Recent Legislation
Recent legal and regulatory developments relevant to the mortgage arrears crisis have included:
Freeman V Bank of Scotland plc, Simon Davidson and Lloyd Daly & Associates Ltd [2016] IESC 14
This Supreme Court decision is as a result of an appeal from a judgment of McGovern J in the High Court which was delivered on 29th May 2014.
Background
In Delaney v AIB [2016] IECA 5, Court of Appeal, Peart J, 28 January 2016 the Court of Appeal held that a bank had no duty of care to advise customers on the wisdom of a commercial transaction.
Facts
In a significant recent judgment, the High Court has set aside an extension of a protective certificate issued to a debtor under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 on the grounds of material and culpable non-disclosure by a personal insolvency practitioner.
Letters of demand frequently request a party to comply with certain obligations by “close of business”. However, due to the uncertainty surrounding what this phrase means, the Supreme Court was recently asked to determine what time is close of business.
Background
A mortgage deed provided that money owed by the borrower to the bank was repayable on demand and that if a demand was not satisfied, the bank could enforce its security by appointing a receiver.
A recent Supreme Court decision looked at the effect of non-registration of the change of ownership of a charge on its enforcement.