Summary Judgment ( without consent ) ruled to be unlawful

That looks like a perfectly sensible decision.

Could you post a link to the ruling?

A summary judgment in this context refers to a judgment for a fixed and agreed amount of money due as a debt where the person owing the money has not answered or entered a defence to the proceedings. In this case, it appears that there was at least a possibility that the defendant was intending to dispute the amount owed or to enter a defence and I am at a loss why the High Court proceeded to judgment in a summary manner in these circumstances without granting the requested adjournment.

The summary judgment process is intended to allow for undisputed cases to be disposed of in a prompt and expeditious manner - it should never prevent or block a defendant from entering a bona fide defence to any proceedings.
 

That's very intersting Asphyxia, can you possible explain to us why the High court wouldn't originally allow the adjournment (in order for the couple to basically get their arguments together and come back later) if you can? And does it often happen. I presume going forward the court will have to allow adjournments so people can present their case.

Does this also mean that those who asked for adjournments and were denied can make appeals now.
 

Seems like the rules have changed, no mention of bona fide defence, just right to be heard under the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights. (That wishy washy European Law stuff )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Incidentally, that report does not suggest that the Court of Appeal has "deemed summary judgment (without consent of the debtor) to be unlawful" as suggested. Now, that really would have been newsworthy!
 
Asphyxia said:
Seems like the rules have changed, no mention of bona fide defence, just right to be heard under the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights. (That wishy washy European Law stuff )
Click to expand...

There is no suggestion in that report that any "rules have changed". Everybody has a constitutional right to be given an adequate opportunity to present their case.
 
Sarenco said:
Incidentally, that report does not suggest that the Court of Appeal has "deemed summary judgment (without consent of the debtor) to be unlawful" as suggested. Now, that really would have been newsworthy!
Click to expand...

I don't get you can you explain?
 
Bronte said:
I don't get you can you explain?
Click to expand...

Well, if the Court of Appeal really did rule that all summary judgments without the consent of the relevant defendant are unlawful then our entire justice system would grind to a halt. Every debt recovery case would have to go to a full hearing, even in circumstances where the debt is for an undisputed amount and the defendant does not enter a defence.

The reported ruling appears to have been decided on the much narrower grounds that in this particular case the High Court should not have proceeded to judgment in a summary manner as the Court was on notice that the defendant was considering whether or not to enter a defence to the proceedings.
 
Last edited:
Sarenco said:
the Court was on notice that the defendant was considering whether or not to enter a defence to the proceedings.
Click to expand...

I thought it was more concrete than that, that they were going to defend it but needed time to get their defense in order.
 
Why is this case regarded as ground-breaking. The standard rule of law is that any defendant is entitled to their "day in court". I.e. Entitled to enter a defense against a plaintiff's case. most judges are prepared to grant a reasonable adjournment in order to allow the defendants time to prepare their defense. As Sarenco says it appears unusual that no adjournment was allowed in this case and there is no rationale put forward as to why the judge did not permit the adjournment.
However, I doubt if this has become standard practice nor that it will have any real impact on ongoing cases.
 
I have a meeting next week with a barrister and will investigate this judgement and possible implications further.

Meanwhile; would anyone be able to offer opinion on the followingI did try to private message about this but my account won't seem to allow me to send it)

A case brought to the High Court under Summary Judgement, which has been adjourned a number of times by the plaintiff (bank), and then was followed by an Intention to proceed (to plenary) lodged by plaintiff.

On foot of (my) defendant's strong defence and issues raised regarding paperwork being faulty (and a request to strike out proceedings) - the Case was adjourned for papers to be read and considered.

A strike out in Master's court however can be appealed and overturned and thens runs risk of a rubber stamp judgement depending on judge.

1. HOWEVER now with this new judgement in mind: if my case is indeed struck out ... Can the plaintiff appeal it? Or do they NOW have to recommence from start and initiate plenary proceedings ?

2. Is there merit in raising as an issue - the fact that they on the last round lodged an intention to proceed (to plenary) . This seems at odds with first of all going for summary and then mid way through changing their stance to plenary...Master raised this on another case but I didn't fully follow the point and I think he may have taken time to reflect on this point also.

3. Additional defence material has also come to light ... Lodge a new supplemental affidavit or wait ?
 
Sophrosyne said:
So why did this case have to go to the Court of Appeal?
Click to expand...

Because the High Court erred in entering a summary judgment in circumstances where the borrower intended to dispute the debt. The case didn't "have" to go to the Court of Appeal but the borrower was perfectly entitled to appeal the decision of the High Court. That's the way our system works.
 

Is there any reason why this Court of Appeal judgement did not find it's way onto the Courts.ie website. I thought this website was meant to publish all judgments and rulings of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Maybe the powers that be do not wish people to view this possible ( floodgate ) ruling and the subject matter of the case !
 

It might just take time (weeks or months) for them to upload it, the judgements don't seem to appear for an amount of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register