The appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution has generally been considered a “remedy of last resort”[1] and, for over a hundred years, courts have expressed differing views as to when they could appoint such a receiver.
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.
It is now well documented that many owners’ management companies are facing the prospect of litigating to recover the cost of remedial works for defective developments or passing the cost onto the owners themselves. Given the passage of time since the construction of the developments and the insolvency of many of the developers and contractors involved in those projects following the financial crisis, management companies often face an uphill battle to recover damages.
In 2018 the Supreme Court delivered its much-awaited decision in the case of SPV OSUS Ltd v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Ltd & Ors where it confirmed that the assignment of a claim is unenforceable in Irish law unless the assignment is ancillary to a bona fide transaction or the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in the assignment.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v O'Grady & Anor 2018 IECA 180 has confirmed that where anapplication for summary judgment is made, a defendant must establish that he has "an arguable defence" to the claim if proceedings are to be remitted to plenary hearing.
Background Facts
In the recent decision of Re M.D.Y. Construction Ltd [2018] IEHC 676 the Examiner sought to have proposals for a scheme of arrangement confirmed by the High Court pursuant to section 541 of the Companies Act 2014 (the "Act"). The most interesting feature of the case was that the scheme of arrangement was proposed for approval by the Interim Examiner before his appointment was confirmed by the High Court.
Arrangement to be approved the day after application to confirm appointment
In the recent case of Re M.D.Y. Construction Limited [2018] IEHC 676, an Interim Examiner made an application pursuant to section 541 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”) to have proposals for a scheme of arrangement confirmed by the High Court. Interestingly, the application was made before the Interim Examiner’s appointment had been confirmed by the Court.
Section 541 of the 2014 Act provides, inter alia, that the report of an Examiner shall be set down for approval by the Court as soon as may be after receipt of the report by the Court.
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
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