Jim Stafford
Registered User
- Messages
- 631
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
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