Cork judge throws out cases taken by Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank as "it is not a legal entity"

No, the court should address whatever applications are before it.

If questions of fact, however irrelevant, arise during the course of a hearing that a party cannot address at the time, the standard procedure is to adjourn the hearing - not strike out the application.
 
Yes, the judge was clear. He was also wrong.

The consensual application was clearly made by the correct party (the mortgagee) and that party clearly exists. Even if this or any other fact was in doubt, the judge should have adjourned the hearing until the position was clarified to his satisfaction rather than strike out a perfectly valid application.

It's really not complicated.
 
Mrs Vimes said:
If I changed my name and then decided to sue a person who owed me money from last year, I fully expect to have to prove that I am still the same person, albeit with a different name, and am therefore still owed the money.
Click to expand...

That's obviously the case but there is no suggestion here that the mortgage was registered in any name other than Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank.

I don't know whether Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank originated the loan itself or whether it acquired the loan from another group entity but that shouldn't matter.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Séamus Coffey reports on the proceeding in Court Circuit Cork today. A bad day for the banks all round. The Judge refused one lender a repossession although the borrower had consented to it. But the following is potentially more significant.

"#2 and #3 actually turned out to be the most interesting. These were applications for substitute service by Bank of Ireland. It seems the borrowers can be found to effect service on them so the bank had an application before the court to allow substitute service by ordinary post. Both applications were struck out by the judge with no order allowing substitute service. Why were they struck out? Because the motion was in the name of Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank. The judge asked “what is the legal status of the plaintiff?” He was told it was a bank. He said a bank is not a legal status and struck out the applications. The judge said a plaintiff has to have a legal status and that you can’t bring an action before the court if you don’t have legal status. As Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank was also the plaintiff on another case the issue was going to arise again."

I have checked in the CRO and indeed Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank is a properly constituted legal entity. [broken link removed]

So these cases should not have been thrown out.

Brendan
Click to expand...

I'd be slow to say what the judge should have done given the experience required to become one! That an institution exists in law doesn't mean the paperwork was right in terms of how they are mentioned in the civil bill. Found out last night that similar issue came up in Dublin a few times in court 33
 
Mrs Vimes said:
Have now read the other responses.

The bank appear to have made some basic errors in their applications.

Given that they have access to the finest legal eagles available, is that really acceptable?

If so, how many errors should the courts accept from people who do not have access to legal representation?
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you, the incompetence is amazing. How difficult is it for the banks with their inhouse counsel, with their access to the best legal firms and their endless pockets to get simple legal documents drawn up properly. It is not rocket science to put the correct name of the plaintiff on a document.
 
Sarenco said:
The holder of the mortgage was incorporated as Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank plc. It subsequently re-registered as an unlimited company and therefore changed its name to Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank.

It was called Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank when the mortgage was registered in its name. The consensual application for a possession order pursuant to this mortgage was therefore made in the correct name.

The judge was very obviously factually incorrect in suggesting that the applicant had no legal status and there is absolutely nothing in the report to suggest that there was any error in the application.

Unfortunately the lender's barrister was unaware of the lender's corporate history. This should have been irrelevant and we will all have to pay for these judicial ego trips.
Click to expand...

The history is only relevant to show transfers from one company to another. But the court document must be in the name of the entity that holds the mortgage. Didn't the guy Gerry Beads win on a case like this. (ACC bank if I remember correctly)
 
From that article which explains it clearly:

In the Cork Circuit Court, Judge Donagh McDonagh struck out the cases because the bank was named as Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank, rather than Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank PLC.

“If banks want to sue people, they must describe themselves properly,” the judge said. Bank of Ireland confirmed three cases had been struck out because of minor inaccuracies on its paperwork.

And I take issue with the bank calling it a minor inaccuracy. Getting your legal standing, as in your name, incorrect, is not minor.
 
As Sarenco has pointed out, the judge was wrong.

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank was incorporated as Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank plc on 21 May 2004 and re-registered as a public unlimited company, with the name Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank, on 23 June 2004.

The case was properly taken in the name of Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank. It is no longer called Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank plc

It was a fair question for the judge to raise, but the case should have been adjourned for it to be clarified, not dismissed.

Brendan
 
Not quite Brendan, it appears from 's post No.6 above that the barrister for the bank did eventually produce a cert of incorporation in the old name.

So the bank on the day was given an opportunity to prove its identity but couldn't produce a cert of incorporation in its current name.
 
Every company has one, and only one, Certificate of Incorporation which details the registered number of the company, its date of incorporation and its name on incorporation. If a company subsequently changes its name, it will be issued a Certificate of Incorporation on Change of Name and if it re-registers as another form of company (e.g. if it becomes a public unlimited company) it will be issued with a Certificate of Incorporation on Re-Registration.

However, a company’s registered number will never change – this number is the company’s unique identifier.

It’s a pity the Irish Times didn’t carry out an online Companies Office search before running the story. It would have been clear from such a search that the factual mistake rests with the judge and not the bank.

This could all have been cleared up if the judge had simply put this matter back to the end of his list or even adjourned the matter but he appears to have been more interested in embarrassing what I suspect was a very junior barrister.
 
The Freemen will be loving this. Beades and Co will claim 'victory' no doubt even if they weren't involved.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Agreed, but there were only a few items on the list and the hearings for all cases were over in less than an hour.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Busy man!

Seriously though an online companies office search would take no more than a few minutes to complete and the change in corporate status of the bank would have been immediately obvious to any competent solicitor.
 
Sarenco said:
The holder of the mortgage was incorporated as Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank plc. It subsequently re-registered as an unlimited company and therefore changed its name to Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank.

It was called Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank when the mortgage was registered in its name. The consensual application for a possession order pursuant to this mortgage was therefore made in the correct name.

The judge was very obviously factually incorrect in suggesting that the applicant had no legal status and there is absolutely nothing in the report to suggest that there was any error in the application.

Unfortunately the lender's barrister was unaware of the lender's corporate history. This should have been irrelevant and we will all have to pay for these judicial ego trips.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of a case many years ago where legal action instituted by The Munster & Leinster Bank Limited was thrown out because the & did not appear in the cert of incorporation whereas the word "and" did. I hope my memory serves me right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top