In positive news for financiers and lenders, the Irish Government has signed an order which gives immediate effect to the “Alternative A” insolvency provisions of the Cape Town Convention.

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.

Two recent developments may have rendered the Irish legal system less attractive to creditors. We examine the scope of these developments and the likely impact on debt collection activity in Ireland.

Rate of interest of judgment debts falls by 6%

The rate of interest on judgment debts has been reduced from 8% to 2%, with effect from 1 January 2017, in accordance with the Courts Act 1981 (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 2016 (S.I. No 624 of 2016) (the “Order”).

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

We examine the scope of the Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2017 and look at the potential impact on defined benefit pension schemes in Ireland, if enacted.

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

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

The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 has undoubtedly strengthened the position of tenants and increased the responsibilities and challenges facing receivers appointed by secured lenders over residential investment properties. While the added protections for tenants are to be welcomed, certain provisions of the Act result in relatively onerous obligations on receivers who are already faced with practical difficulties when seeking to deal with and realise the secured asset in accordance with their duties.