A recent High Court case has brought about a change in the status quo involving personal insolvency arrangements and separated spouses. Banks were previously unable to complete deals with one spouse without the mutual cooperation of both parties. However the decision of JD & Personal Insolvency Acts1 has altered this position.

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.

In two recent decisions the High Court considered the provisions of Section 115A(9) of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 to 2015 (The Acts). The Section provides that a Court can give effect to a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) despite it having been rejected by creditors. It was designed to enable a qualifying debtor to retain their principal private residence in certain circumstances.

The recent judgment in MB Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Limited (in liquidation) –v- Allied Irish Bank Plc [2016] has clarified what constitutes “notice” of the liquidation of a company for creditors and banks alike.

Background

Any disposition of a company's property made after the commencement of its winding up, without the approval of the liquidator, is void. In a 2001 case (Re Industrial Services Company (Dublin) Ltd [2001] 2 I.R.118), the High Court held that the transfer by an account bank of monies from an in-credit account of a company in liquidation to third parties constituted a disposition and the bank could be liable to repay the value of such transfers despite not being aware of the winding up order for the Company.

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:

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