There has been no explanation (or even an attempted explanation) of where the shortfall comes from
I am not sure I understand this correctly.
This person earns 80k a year yet has expences of 120k a year.
Who is paying for the extra 40k??? Surely the bank that he owes 17m are hardly extending his credit as well???
csirl;1135409 Friend of mine who was privately educated during the 80s recession told me years ago that a lot of wealthy risk takers invest in their children's education as a way of avoiding a drop in lifestyle if they gamble away everything. [/QUOTE said:I was very lucky to have gone to a fee paying school for a while around the period you mentioned. I did not notice what you say to be true. But it was true that a higher percentage of the people in the school came from wealthy backgrounds and as a percentage they had a better chance of making it to university and hence to get good jobs. I remember someone coming from Trinity once and they said we had a better chance of not dropping out of university because boarding school kids are better adapted at living away from home. Those children who are adults now and I've met them seem to have in general done well in life but via jobs not via their parents. There was of course some who relied on their parents but I have not found it to be the case that the children paid for the parents. Also a lot of parents made sacrifices to send their kids to certain schools. I have a sibling who is doing so.
Nope. They can make another application, but that is doomed to failure as it will be before the same judge. If the bank do this they would be going down the road of harassment and abuse of process, i.e. making what would be seen as a vexatious application.Can the bank appeal the decision of the district court judgement?
I think people need to be careful not to make assumptions that serve to back up opinions that are pre-formed.
A statement of means was prepared in this case and it was examined by the judge. I think that the courts will prioritise debts - ie you pay for a roof over your head, food, heat etc and after that you pay for other debts. I have no idea what was in this man's statement of means, but I have some faith that the judge examined the statement carefully before reaching his decision.
When I said that 80k was not a lot for a family to live on I assumed that it was pre-tax (leaving an after tax income of €4200 per month) and assumed like most that there are mortgage payments to make. A house that cost €650k during the boom (worth prob €350k now) would cost €3k per month in mortgage payments. Food bill, heating costs, maybe a car loan, general education costs (even apart from school fees), and you are already under the water.
None of us can judge the decision the judge made in this or any other case without examining the statement of means which we are not in a position to do.
All you can debate is whether or not a debtor in these circumstances should be permitted to pay school fees from his income.
I agree with onq on that issue and I think that it should be permitted in limited circumstances.
What I do know is that Peter Kelly and other High Court judges made it clear that no debtor will be permitted to live a lavish or luxury lifestyle while leaving debts unpaid.
.
Nope. They can make another application, but that is doomed to failure as it will be before the same judge. If the bank do this they would be going down the road of harassment and abuse of process, i.e. making what would be seen as a vexatious application.
Indeed, and such people will be hounded to the ends of the earth by the banks.Indeed some people live on less than the school fees of 27K a year. And some people on less than 27K a year no doubt get instalment orders against them every week in Irish courts.
They would have problems slapping an Irish JM on a UK property. That is if any UK property is in his name of course.Judges don't like that. What else can they do. Seek a judgement mortgage on the UK property? And then ultimately a well charging order?
Kate said:This person's financial situation can be re-visited if there are any changes to it and an installment order made at that time.
Nope. They can make another application, but that is doomed to failure as it will be before the same judge. If the bank do this they would be going down the road of harassment and abuse of process, i.e. making what would be seen as a vexatious application.
They most certainly can.Perhaps the bank can go back to court if the debtor situation changes...
This is the thing. Judges always tell banks they can reapply if circumstances of the debtor change. I don't know how they find out.but how would the bank be aware of such changes in circumstances?