Speed bump for purchasers of loans

Jim Stafford

Registered User
Messages
631
Mason Hayes & Curran have published a useful summary of the recent decision regarding Mars Capital. Their detailed review may be seen at the following link:

[broken link removed]

Following the acquisition of a loan portfolio from Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (“IBRC”), Mars Capital Ireland Limited (“Mars”) sought an order substituting it as plaintiff in lieu of IBRC, in the proceedings against the defendants.

As there were over 500 Circuit Court proceedings relating to loans in the portfolio, rather than bringing standalone applications in each set of proceedings, Mars adopted the practice of making one omnibus application for an order substituting it as plaintiff in lieu of Irish Nationwide Building Society, Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited, or IBRC as appropriate in each of the Circuit Court proceedings.

Their application was refused by the court.

Likely effects of the judgment
The decision affects Circuit Court cases only. The option of making an omnibus application in the High Court is not affected by this decision.

However, the finding that each of the Circuit Court cases should be dealt with individually rather than leaving it to the discretion of the Judge in the appropriate circuit to deal with an omnibus application in respect of each circuit appears likely to require hundreds of separate applications to be made across all of the circuits in Ireland.

Comment (by Mason Hayes & Curran)
In light of the decision, it seems likely that acquirers of loan portfolios who wish to be substituted as plaintiff in any related Circuit Court proceedings may face difficulties if an omnibus application is issued in each circuit.

Consequently, the additional time and cost implications will need to be considered at both the diligence stage of any acquisition and, subsequently, when a decision is being made regarding the merits of continuing with any such proceedings or identifying alternative approaches on a case by case basis.

Jim Stafford
 
Last edited:
The justification: "steps should not be taken ... which have the potential to confuse or disrupt the orderly local administration of each case"
Our local administration is so inflexible that 576 individual substitutions is "less confusing" than one omnibus decision?

Hard to see this as anything other than feet-dragging.
 
Back
Top