Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,172
I attended the Registrar's List on Thursday and there have been some significant developments. First the overall summary
A Practice Direction Adjournment is where a case is automatically adjourned on its first appearance in the Registrar's List.
A peremptory adjournment is where the bank(or the borrower) is given one final adjournment. At the next hearing, they will not be given another adjournment. An order will be granted or the case will be struck out.
She also made it clear to two or three borrowers that she would be making an order for possession against them the next time, if the bank wished to proceed.
The Registrar's attitude has changed quite dramatically which should worry borrowers
She granted an order where the last payment was made as recently as September 2015 for €1,500. I have not seen this in any court before. See case no. 3 below.
In all the other courts and in this court previously, whenever a bank applied for an adjournment, it was granted automatically, no questions asked. But on a number of occasions, the Registrar stated "This is not an adjournment jurisdiction". She is telling the lenders to proceed with the case or strike it out. This puts the bank in a very difficult position. If they have reached an Alternative Repayment Arrangement or even if the borrower has started paying something without a formal arrangement, they are happy to adjourn it to see how the borrower behaves. But they don't want to strike it out as that will put them back to square 1 if the borrower stops paying.
Where she granted orders, she also gave orders for the full costs. I had not seen that before.
In four of the five orders, she granted stays of only 3 months. In other courts, stays of up to a year were granted.
In one case, she was close to granting an order but gave a one month adjournment instead because the borrower claimed that an employee of the bank had said that if they paid €400, the bank would review the case. She gave out to the borrower for not knowing the name of the person to whom he had spoken. Normally a payment of €400, in fact, normally just turning up in court, would result in a 6 months adjournment. (Case study 11 below)
In one case, the borrower wanted an adjournment and the bank consented. The Registrar asked the borrower on what grounds he wanted an adjournment and as he hadn't got any real grounds, she told the solicitor to take instructions. On returning to court, the bank then said he wanted to proceed with an order rather than have it struck out. After a bit more discussion, the Registrar gave a peremptory adjournment. In this case, I think that the bank would have been quite happy to keep adjourning rather than to seek an order. But they are being forced to seek an order. Of course, the bank could get the order and choose not to enforce it. But from the borrower's point of view, it would be much better if the bank did not get the order in the first place.
In another case which was the first appearance in the court, the borrower said that he was paying the monthly repayments in full, and paying off some arrears. As it was the first appearance, the adjournment was automatic, but she said to the borrower "Paying your mortgage in full is not enough to make this go away. You must reach an agreement with your bank".
In another case, the borrower applied for an adjournment and she told him that any such application should be made on affidavit and the reason should be given. She granted the adjournment, but was sending out a clear message.
In one case, the borrower said that she had not received notice of the case by registered letter. The Registrar told her that the bank had the evidence from the post office that a note had been left to say that there was a registered letter waiting for them in the post office, and they had not collected it.
The banks need to be very worried about the change in attitude as well
It is very difficult for a lender to get their paperwork in order. They must find the borrowers within a particular time scale to serve the papers. If they don't, the civil bill might be out of time. They must notify the borrower that the case will be in court and they must have the original of that notice with them in court. They must serve this notice at least 21 days before the court date. They must have the appropriate Certificate of Rateable Valuation. There are many other potholes which the bank can fall into, which will prevent them getting an order, no matter how well justified it is.
She gave 14 peremptory adjournments. She is telling them to seek an order or else it will be struck out. It's not clear to me what will happen if their paperwork is not in order. Will she strike them out or will she give a technical adjournment?
On the other hand, there were two cases where original documents were not in court and she granted orders in both these cases on the basis of an undertaking that the originals would be lodged in court later that day. I have not seen this "flexibility" towards the banks in any other court or in this court before. Usually the lack of a document would result in an adjournment.
A Practice Direction Adjournment is where a case is automatically adjourned on its first appearance in the Registrar's List.
A peremptory adjournment is where the bank(or the borrower) is given one final adjournment. At the next hearing, they will not be given another adjournment. An order will be granted or the case will be struck out.
She also made it clear to two or three borrowers that she would be making an order for possession against them the next time, if the bank wished to proceed.
The Registrar's attitude has changed quite dramatically which should worry borrowers
She granted an order where the last payment was made as recently as September 2015 for €1,500. I have not seen this in any court before. See case no. 3 below.
In all the other courts and in this court previously, whenever a bank applied for an adjournment, it was granted automatically, no questions asked. But on a number of occasions, the Registrar stated "This is not an adjournment jurisdiction". She is telling the lenders to proceed with the case or strike it out. This puts the bank in a very difficult position. If they have reached an Alternative Repayment Arrangement or even if the borrower has started paying something without a formal arrangement, they are happy to adjourn it to see how the borrower behaves. But they don't want to strike it out as that will put them back to square 1 if the borrower stops paying.
Where she granted orders, she also gave orders for the full costs. I had not seen that before.
In four of the five orders, she granted stays of only 3 months. In other courts, stays of up to a year were granted.
In one case, she was close to granting an order but gave a one month adjournment instead because the borrower claimed that an employee of the bank had said that if they paid €400, the bank would review the case. She gave out to the borrower for not knowing the name of the person to whom he had spoken. Normally a payment of €400, in fact, normally just turning up in court, would result in a 6 months adjournment. (Case study 11 below)
In one case, the borrower wanted an adjournment and the bank consented. The Registrar asked the borrower on what grounds he wanted an adjournment and as he hadn't got any real grounds, she told the solicitor to take instructions. On returning to court, the bank then said he wanted to proceed with an order rather than have it struck out. After a bit more discussion, the Registrar gave a peremptory adjournment. In this case, I think that the bank would have been quite happy to keep adjourning rather than to seek an order. But they are being forced to seek an order. Of course, the bank could get the order and choose not to enforce it. But from the borrower's point of view, it would be much better if the bank did not get the order in the first place.
In another case which was the first appearance in the court, the borrower said that he was paying the monthly repayments in full, and paying off some arrears. As it was the first appearance, the adjournment was automatic, but she said to the borrower "Paying your mortgage in full is not enough to make this go away. You must reach an agreement with your bank".
In another case, the borrower applied for an adjournment and she told him that any such application should be made on affidavit and the reason should be given. She granted the adjournment, but was sending out a clear message.
In one case, the borrower said that she had not received notice of the case by registered letter. The Registrar told her that the bank had the evidence from the post office that a note had been left to say that there was a registered letter waiting for them in the post office, and they had not collected it.
The banks need to be very worried about the change in attitude as well
It is very difficult for a lender to get their paperwork in order. They must find the borrowers within a particular time scale to serve the papers. If they don't, the civil bill might be out of time. They must notify the borrower that the case will be in court and they must have the original of that notice with them in court. They must serve this notice at least 21 days before the court date. They must have the appropriate Certificate of Rateable Valuation. There are many other potholes which the bank can fall into, which will prevent them getting an order, no matter how well justified it is.
She gave 14 peremptory adjournments. She is telling them to seek an order or else it will be struck out. It's not clear to me what will happen if their paperwork is not in order. Will she strike them out or will she give a technical adjournment?
On the other hand, there were two cases where original documents were not in court and she granted orders in both these cases on the basis of an undertaking that the originals would be lodged in court later that day. I have not seen this "flexibility" towards the banks in any other court or in this court before. Usually the lack of a document would result in an adjournment.
Last edited:
