# Banks/Vulture Funds may be unable to enforce judgments more than 6 years old!



## Jim Stafford (23 Feb 2022)

The judgment below will cause many banks/vulture funds and their solicitors to shiver if they are contemplating to enforce judgments more than 6 years old. At this stage many judgments relating to the Economic crash of 2008 are more than 6 years old.

The court concluded as follows:
"In the circumstances described above, Cabot, notwithstanding the opportunity given to it at the hearing in October 2021, has failed to provide any reason to explain the lapse of time in this case. In this context, I am very conscious that, as Geoghegan J. made clear in Smyth v. Tunney, it is not necessary to give some unusual, exceptional or very special reason for obtaining permission. However, it is clear that some reason must be given. In this case, Cabot has wholly failed to provide a reason that explains the long period of inactivity on its part or on the part of its predecessor in title, ACC Bank plc. In these circumstances, I am compelled to refuse the application of Cabot under O. 42 for leave to execute as against Mr. O’Meachair the judgment obtained by ACC Bank Plc on 15th November 2010."

The judgment also shows how expensive some Receiverships can be, with, in this case, 4 properties being sold for €50,000 but the bank only received €7,653.

It is interesting that the Defendant, although he is now discharged from bankruptcy, has now retained valuable property in his name.

It is a case that we will be quoting frequently to banks/vulture funds as we seek settlements on behalf of insolvent debtors. Watch out for ACC/O’Meachair! 


Jim Stafford
pdf​courts.ie • 17 min read​THE HIGH COURT COMMERCIAL [2022] IEHC 92 [2010 No. 9146 P] BETWEEN ACC BANK PLC PLAINTIFF AND THOMAS JOYCE, PATRICI​


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (23 Feb 2022)

(I haven't read the judgement).

But did ACC/Cabot make reasonable, frequent steps after the judgement to try to enforce it? Or is the issue that they let it go to sleep for several years before trying to enforce?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Feb 2022)

This will penalise lenders who have held back from repossessing people's homes for whatever reason. 

The unintended consequence is that banks will now seek to enforce judgements immediately they get them to make sure that they don't get caught out by this.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Feb 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> did ACC/Cabot make reasonable, frequent steps after the judgement to try to enforce it?



It appears not. 

They got a judgement. It's not clear to me if someone else had a prior mortgage on it. 

The guy went bankrupt.  But the judge said that was no reason for them not to enforce the order. 

Cabot took it over from ACC, but the judge said that should not have impacted things either.

Brendan


----------



## Property11 (6 Mar 2022)

Wasn't there a recent case whereby a charging order could be renewed even after 12 years? Start mortgages v Barry piggott.. 
How is this judgement different for Cabot ?


----------



## Jim Stafford (7 Mar 2022)

The_ Start mortgages v Barry Piggott  _was a very different type of case involving a repossession order and where the Defendant had been making regular payments. The link to the case is below.



			https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8194f2da-867f-4e86-92b4-8d2b6df59a4a/2020_IEHC_293.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
		



Jim Stafford


----------



## JD2021 (8 Mar 2022)

It is a fascinating development Jim,, my interest in this stems from a Judgement Mortgage registered on foot of a personal debt in 2009, the Judgement was registered by my original mortgage provider who went on the sell my home mortgage to a Vulture Fund. The judgement mortgage only came to light to me when I sought a credit report in order to assess my situation fully. There was engagement on the actual personal debt until 2013 and no further engagement or communication about this since. 

Seperately, I did run into difficulties with my home mortgage and posted about this seperately and got great advice. 

I've since being paying my mortgage in full, reduced arrears substantially and making every effort to keep on top of things, despite reduced income (Health) 

I sought (privately) advice from a Barrister, specialising in the area of Judgement Mortgages, due to engagement up to 2013, the statue of limitations (despite original judgement on the personal debt 2009) expires technically in 2025. 

It does hang over me but I'm in no position to deal with the Judgement mortgage whilst insuring I pay my mortgage in full albeit, small arrears remain.


----------



## Zeus2020 (16 Mar 2022)

Could you please give the name of a barter that deals with these issues


----------



## JD2021 (17 Mar 2022)

I'm unsure if I can post the name of the BARRISTER publically but happy to supply his name if you want to PM me. 

Important to note however he was consulted for a written opinion through my Solicitor, the opinion cost around €550 including VAT.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (17 Mar 2022)

JD2021 said:


> I sought (privately) advice from a Barrister, specialising in the area of Judgement Mortgages, due to engagement up to 2013, the statue of limitations (despite original judgement on the personal debt 2009) expires technically in 2025.


I thought barristers were prohibited from engaging directly with clients, only through solicitors.

I know this because I tried a direct approach once and was refused by several barristers!


----------



## JD2021 (17 Mar 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I thought barristers were prohibited from engaging directly with clients, only through solicitors.
> 
> I know this because I tried a direct approach once and was refused by several barristers!


If you read my post again, you'll notice, Barrister was consulted on my behalf, through my Solicitor, I made no direct contact with the BARRISTER, only recieved a copy of his written opinion. I did however pay the barrister directly, my Solicitor didn't charge me any fee.


----------



## Baby boomer (17 Mar 2022)

JD2021 said:


> ..... I did however pay the barrister directly, my Solicitor didn't charge me any fee.


That's VERY unusual.  At various points in my career, I commissioned barristers to provide advice and representation.  It was ALWAYS done through our solicitor, and the barristers fee notes were always directed to the solicitor who duly incorporated it into his own bill.

IIRC, there was also a historical thing that barristers can't legally sue a client for an unpaid bill, and the tardiness of solicitors in passing on payment to barristers is regularly, ahem, discussed between the Bar Council and the Law Society.


----------



## JD2021 (18 Mar 2022)

Baby boomer said:


> That's VERY unusual.  At various points in my career, I commissioned barristers to provide advice and representation.  It was ALWAYS done through our solicitor, and the barristers fee notes were always directed to the solicitor who duly incorporated it into his own bill.
> 
> IIRC, there was also a historical thing that barristers can't legally sue a client for an unpaid bill, and the tardiness of solicitors in passing on payment to barristers is regularly, ahem, discussed between the Bar Council and the Law Society.


Have you actually read my posts on this matter, as I've explained twice, now, I did not engage a Barrister directly, my Solicitor did on my behalf. I'm not at all sure why at times people rush to question a post as if to find something 'unusual " and then respond having clearly not read the actual OP.

So again, my Solicitor consulted the Barrister, I recieved written opinion and on receipt of same, paid the Barrister directly as requested to by my solicitor who waived his fee on the matter.

I'll attach a redacted letter from my excellent solicitor advising payment directly to Barristers account if your still in any doubt and I might add, I have furnished details of said Barrister privately via PM to another poster and reiterating it will require referral through a solicitor.

Re Barrister not being able to sue a solicitor for unpaid bills, I'm not entirely sure what your getting at but that point not at all relevant.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Mar 2022)

JD2021 said:


> Have you actually read my posts on this matter, as I've explained twice, now, I did not engage a Barrister directly,


Your first post implied that you did.



> I sought (privately) advice from a Barrister,


----------



## Baby boomer (18 Mar 2022)

JD2021 said:


> Have you actually read my posts on this matter,


Yes, I tend to read posts before replying to them. It's a useful discipline.  I'd recommend it.



JD2021 said:


> as I've explained twice, now, I did not engage a Barrister directly, my Solicitor did on my behalf.


Yeah, I got that.



JD2021 said:


> I'm not at all sure why at times people rush to question a post as if to find something 'unusual "


Because a client paying a barrister directly is VERY unusual.  I know this from long experience having engaged barristers for my former employer on dozens of occasions.



JD2021 said:


> ankd then respond having clearly not read the actual OP.


At the risk of repeating myself, sadly necessary because of your failure to comprehend (or perhaps even read) some straightforward posts, I did not question the manner in which you engaged the barrister.  (Standard referral through solicitor.) I simply pointed out that it is unusual for a client to pay a barrister directly.  Even your own post shows that the barrister billed the solicitor, as barristers always do. 



JD2021 said:


> So again, my Solicitor consulted the Barrister, I recieved written opinion and on receipt of same, paid the Barrister directly as requested to by my solicitor who waived his fee on the matter.


Ok, that's an unusual way for a solicitor to do things.  Doubtless your solicitor had a good reason. Perhaps unrelated to your own case.



JD2021 said:


> I'll attach a redacted letter from my excellent solicitor advising payment directly to Barristers account if your still in any doubt


I'm just saying it's unusual.  We have established that the payment arrangement was at the solicitor's request and that the barrister's fee note went to the solicitor in the normal manner. 



JD2021 said:


> and I might add, I have furnished details of said Barrister privately via PM to another poster and reiterating it will require referral through a solicitor.


Whatever.



JD2021 said:


> Re Barrister not being able to sue a solicitor for unpaid bills, I'm not entirely sure what your getting at but that point not at all relevant.


It's background to the tradition of how barristers get paid.  If you can't figure out any possible relevance that could explain a lot.


----------



## JD2021 (18 Mar 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Your first post implied that you did.


Privately as in this issue was not mentioned, dealt with, discussed with or form part of any communication I had with VF who purchased my mortgage from original mortgage provider, the word Privately was NOT intended to infer I consultanted a Barrister directly but I sought legal advice privately as part of the process to assertain my options and as explained through my Solicitor (privately) 

Again, yet another attempt to make assumptions based on wording, assumptions, I can only assume to suggest I wasn't being entirely forthcoming. I went on to clarify matters and of course this ignored or not read responses carefully. 

As I've now clarified the matter and indeed happy to PM with anyone (which I have actually done), perhaps we can get back to the actual Thread Topic.


----------



## JD2021 (18 Mar 2022)

Baby boomer said:


> Yes, I tend to read posts before replying to them. It's a useful discipline.  I'd recommend it.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I got that.
> ...


I'm not at all sure what your problem is, perhaps it's my reminder of the importance of actually reading posts before making glib comments. 

I've, perhaps annoyed you at clarifying matters, so be it. Why your deflecting from the actual topic is beyond me but I won't be engaging further with you.


----------



## Baby boomer (18 Mar 2022)

JD2021 said:


> I'm not at all sure what your problem is, perhaps it's my reminder of the importance of actually reading posts before making glib comments.
> 
> I've, perhaps annoyed you at clarifying matters, so be it. Why your deflecting from the actual topic is beyond me but I won't be engaging further with you.


That's a relief!!!


----------



## JD2021 (18 Mar 2022)

I really don't understand this need to be padentic and need to be over analysing a post or comment, its utterly perplexing and rarely if ever deals with the topic at hand and seem only intent on being critical of contributers. 

It would be nice to actually get input, advice, thoughts, opinions on Thread Topic subject rather than being critised for making what I felt was a worthwhile sharing of my experience. 

Incidently, I recieved excellent advice and encouragement when I first shared by mortgage challenges a year ago on a seperate thread. My situation greatly improved and dealing with mortgage difficulties is not a pleasant experience especially with a health challenge but more importantly, I'm no legal or financial expert and had to learn to understand the process. I just don't get the need for negative commentary on such mundane things as the use of. a single word which in turns ends up being turned into a conspiracy theory. 

I discovered and quite by accident a JM on a credit report I requested, something I never did before. I sought advice on the complexity of a JM, hence my interest in Jim's post. 

If people can't share their experiences (perhaps not as elegantly as some would wish), what is really the point if it leads to this unnecessary and unfair over analysing based on a single word. Fair enough correct an error but to automatically assume a person is being less than honest is truly perplexing. 

I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Johnno75 (18 Mar 2022)

For completeness:

Barristers can take instructions from clients directly in certain circumstances without the client having to go through a Solicitor. 









						Direct Professional Access - Law Library
					

Being an Approved Body means that entities can access a barrister directly for legal assistance in non-contentious matters - legal opinions - without having to go through an instructing solicitor. Services accessed under the scheme do not include litigation services (e.g. court proceedings).




					www.lawlibrary.ie


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Mar 2022)

Johnno75 said:


> Barristers can take instructions from clients directly in certain circumstances without the client having to go through a Solicitor.


That's interesting.

I tried to get a few barristers to quote me for a question on a pretty abstract point of law, no litigation involved.

They all either didn't get back to me or refused!


----------



## Johnno75 (18 Mar 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> That's interesting.
> 
> I tried to get a few barristers to quote me for a question on a pretty abstract point of law, no litigation involved.
> 
> They all either didn't get back to me or refused!


Not all barristers provide the DPA service.


----------



## JD2021 (18 Mar 2022)

Johnno75 said:


> For completeness:
> 
> Barristers can take instructions from clients directly in certain circumstances without the client having to go through a Solicitor.
> 
> ...


Thank you, I was aware of this but didn't want to add fuel to the fire so to speak , indeed Barrister's and SC list wether they can engage through direct access on the law society website.  In my own case , I went through my solicitor.


----------



## JD2021 (18 Mar 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> That's interesting.
> 
> I tried to get a few barristers to quote me for a question on a pretty abstract point of law, no litigation involved.
> 
> They all either didn't get back to me or refused!


In all honesty I was aware if this , but didn't want to go off topic and unfortunately there was an effort to deflect from my initial OP . But it is worth noting access is not available in all cases and individual Barristers and SC state this on their profiles .

I'm not sure when direct access rules changed but more likely after you had attempted to seek advice


----------



## JD2021 (18 Mar 2022)

Johnno75 said:


> Not all barristers provide the DPA service.


That is correct


----------

