Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,722
I attended Dublin Circuit Court today to see the 5 cases for possession on Judge Linnane's List.
Case 1 - Haven Mortgage Ltd vs...
Initiated in 2014.
I saw this in the Registrar's Court on 13th March. It was the 5th time in the court back then. The borrowers were in an arrangement and Haven sought another adjournment. The Registrar refused. Her practice is that a lender should seek an order for possession or else, strike out the case. They should not, in her opinion, keep the case hanging over the borrower. [Incidentally, most other County Registrars are happy to grant general adjournments in such cases.] The Registrar cannot strike out a case, so she sent it to the Judge's List which took place today.
Today, Haven applied for an adjournment.
Judge: Is that the correct name? Isn’t Haven a DAC?
Solicitor: I don’t know.
Judge: In October 2015, you applied for an amendment. What was that amendment?
Solicitor: I don’t recall.
Judge: Do you have your file?
Solicitor: No.
Judge: It’s crazy showing up in court without a file
Judge: It was amended for a PPR.
Put back to second calling for the solicitor to take instructions.
Solicitor and Barrister now in attendance as well – it’s not a DAC, though we don’t know why.
Judge: Adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter. “ The arrears are €15,700 which is minuscule compared to other cases I am dealing with”
Other cases
Ulster Bank sought permission to change the name on the proceedings to Ulster Bank DAC. The Judge struck out the application, as the borrower was not on notice.
ptsb sought an adjournment, because the borrower who had vacated the property had now moved back in. As it was now their family home again, ptsb needs a Certificate of Rateable Valuation. Adjourned Generally.
Haven wanted an order to deem service good. It was refused as Haven were writing to the borrower in Essex. The borrower had given that as their home address in January 2016 and the judge wanted to know how they had verified that he was still living there.
On the 9th February, the County Registrar had refused an adjournment as it was the 6th time in court. Barrister for ptsb: We don't have the papers. Judge: Is there a solicitor here for ptsb? Belgard Solicitors were on record for ptsb, but they had nominated a town agent to represent them in the case. The judge wondered why a solicitor based in Tallaght could not attend the court. Adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter.
My assessment
While it is hard for lenders to get an order for possession as they have to jump through a lot of hoops e.g. amending the proceedings if they change their name, they often have themselves to blame as they are so disorganised to the extent of not having the files with them.
Non-repossession cases
The most striking aspect of all the cases today was the total disorganization of the solicitors and the barristers. In one case, the barrister was seeking an order against two companies which had been struck off. They were simultaneously trying to resurrect the two companies through an order of the Circuit Court. The Judge struck out the motion and the proceedings on the grounds that they were misconceived. [Despite there being “switch off mobiles” signs everywhere in the room, the barrister’s phone went off while he was addressing the judge. He tried to switch it off, but only managed to trigger SIRI so the phone announced: “Sorry I don’t understand what you want”. The barrister fumbles again apologising to the judge. And the phone repeated: “Sorry I don’t understand what you want”. It is a terrible pity we are not allowed to laugh in the court.]
In a personal injury case, the solicitors for the plaintiff had written to the defendant seeking discovery over 8 categories, listed as A to G. The defendant had replied in some detail. The plaintiff ignored the reply and just sought an order anyway. But applied for the discovery using using numbers and apparently in a different order. The judge was very frustrated as it took the court a long time to tie in all the different documents.
Brendan
Case 1 - Haven Mortgage Ltd vs...
Initiated in 2014.
I saw this in the Registrar's Court on 13th March. It was the 5th time in the court back then. The borrowers were in an arrangement and Haven sought another adjournment. The Registrar refused. Her practice is that a lender should seek an order for possession or else, strike out the case. They should not, in her opinion, keep the case hanging over the borrower. [Incidentally, most other County Registrars are happy to grant general adjournments in such cases.] The Registrar cannot strike out a case, so she sent it to the Judge's List which took place today.
Today, Haven applied for an adjournment.
Judge: Is that the correct name? Isn’t Haven a DAC?
Solicitor: I don’t know.
Judge: In October 2015, you applied for an amendment. What was that amendment?
Solicitor: I don’t recall.
Judge: Do you have your file?
Solicitor: No.
Judge: It’s crazy showing up in court without a file
Judge: It was amended for a PPR.
Put back to second calling for the solicitor to take instructions.
Solicitor and Barrister now in attendance as well – it’s not a DAC, though we don’t know why.
Judge: Adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter. “ The arrears are €15,700 which is minuscule compared to other cases I am dealing with”
Other cases
Ulster Bank sought permission to change the name on the proceedings to Ulster Bank DAC. The Judge struck out the application, as the borrower was not on notice.
ptsb sought an adjournment, because the borrower who had vacated the property had now moved back in. As it was now their family home again, ptsb needs a Certificate of Rateable Valuation. Adjourned Generally.
Haven wanted an order to deem service good. It was refused as Haven were writing to the borrower in Essex. The borrower had given that as their home address in January 2016 and the judge wanted to know how they had verified that he was still living there.
On the 9th February, the County Registrar had refused an adjournment as it was the 6th time in court. Barrister for ptsb: We don't have the papers. Judge: Is there a solicitor here for ptsb? Belgard Solicitors were on record for ptsb, but they had nominated a town agent to represent them in the case. The judge wondered why a solicitor based in Tallaght could not attend the court. Adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter.
My assessment
While it is hard for lenders to get an order for possession as they have to jump through a lot of hoops e.g. amending the proceedings if they change their name, they often have themselves to blame as they are so disorganised to the extent of not having the files with them.
Non-repossession cases
The most striking aspect of all the cases today was the total disorganization of the solicitors and the barristers. In one case, the barrister was seeking an order against two companies which had been struck off. They were simultaneously trying to resurrect the two companies through an order of the Circuit Court. The Judge struck out the motion and the proceedings on the grounds that they were misconceived. [Despite there being “switch off mobiles” signs everywhere in the room, the barrister’s phone went off while he was addressing the judge. He tried to switch it off, but only managed to trigger SIRI so the phone announced: “Sorry I don’t understand what you want”. The barrister fumbles again apologising to the judge. And the phone repeated: “Sorry I don’t understand what you want”. It is a terrible pity we are not allowed to laugh in the court.]
In a personal injury case, the solicitors for the plaintiff had written to the defendant seeking discovery over 8 categories, listed as A to G. The defendant had replied in some detail. The plaintiff ignored the reply and just sought an order anyway. But applied for the discovery using using numbers and apparently in a different order. The judge was very frustrated as it took the court a long time to tie in all the different documents.
Brendan
Last edited:
