Discussion in 'Mortgage arrears & negative equity case studies' started by Open air, 2 Aug 2017.
It's 26th June, as far as I know.
Up on tuesday i think
Any Update from today's hearing ?
Did the case go ahead ?
Went ahead, tanager had 6 senior barristers, 4 junior barristers, 4 solicitors, and 6 others from land registry etc. Rolf was on his own, he did v well. Michael mcdowell represented tanager and did most of the talking, a man who really understands the case said to me that mcdowells main point was , if you dont rule in favour of tanager, then they will sue the state and land reg
Wow.....Why all the legal team from Tanager....to intimidate, to bully.....sounds like that to me. I really wish Rolf Kane the best. McDowell's main point as outlined above is outrageous. Where does this case go from here?
I think that it is highly unlikely that Tanager had 10 barristers on the case. In fact, how would anyone know? There are barristers sitting around the bench that have nothing to do with the case.
I would be surprised if he made this point. The judge would ignore it if he did. He might have said that the Land Registry was negligent.
Michael McDowell was representing McCann Fitzgerald on behalf of Bank of Scotland, he had a junior as well. Tanager did have two seniors and junior, the PRA had a senior and a junior, there was of course the plethora of associated solicitors from the relevant solicitors offices (A L Goodbody, McCann Fitzgerald and the CSSO instructing them, that were also present in the courtroom. They all had their extensive case files prominently displayed on the table for the three judges to observe (optics and so much for the rain forest). The case was succiently put to the three Judges by the seniors regarding the 5 questions that Justice Noonan of the High Court had asked the Appeals court to determine upon.
Rolf Kane made his reply to the Court in the afternoon. The main thrust of his argument was this (and please correct me, if I am wrong). He argued that the Courts, both the Appeals and High Court had not got the jurisdiction to hear his case. His reasoning was that he believed the Irish transposition of the Cross Border Merger Regulations was being relied upon by the Court, Tanager and the notice parties. He argued that this was a fatal mistake, as the cross border merger regulations which grounded the absorption of BOSI to BOS were in fact, based on UK Cross Border Merger Regulations. He stated that the European Directive and the U.K. transposition of same were compatible in law, but that the Irish Regulations (in particular section 19) was not compatible with the European Directive. If found to be the case, this will have very serious repercussions for any entities that bought loans from BOS.
On the face of it, Mr Kane may have inadvertently opened pandora's box. Maybe the UK regulations are not as compatible to the European Cross Border Regulations as one might first surmise. BOS did not have an Irish banking licence, they do not have a place of business here and are not regulated by the CBI, therefore immediately after the merger, if you had a complaint about the Bank, your only option was to complain the the UK Financial Ombudsman, the question of giving oral evidence in such a complaint would require you to travel! Lots to think about I think!
So three barristers and not 10. That is a lot more understandable.
Quite alot i think
Rolf Kane has also issued plenary proceedings against Tanager in the High Court which are running concurrently with Tanager's action against Kane. Yesterday, the Attorney General allowed himself to be joined to these proceedings, so maybe there may be merit in Mr Kane's argument.
Can you explain this please ides
These cases are currently sub judice. However I can state that the Attorney General only becomes joined in a case where it is felt that there are Constitutional issues to be pleaded upon or possible State liability.
Thank you Ides for this information. Very clearly written. I am watching closely I am back in December. Rolf seems to really know his stuff fair play to him.
Do not rely on Rolf.
You can keep your house by paying what you can and trying to get a restructure from Tanager.
If you can't pay anything at all, maybe Rolf will stave off the repossession by a couple of years.
I agree totally with Brendan in this regard, the Courts (and Brendan will back me up in this regard) are NOT issuing possession orders in favour of the banks/funds if you are paying what you can (regular payment that at least cover the interest on the outstanding capital amount). Tanager are doing restructures, but are painfully slow in delivering same to borrowers.
Has anyone managed to find out what TANAGER paid for their loan ??
Has anyone had a discounted settlement offer from TANAGER ??
Has anyone had a settlement offer accepted by TANAGER ??
you of all people should know what tanager are like brendan, you know how they treat their customers, youve seen it first hand.Not everyone is strong enough to deal with this shower
Separate names with a comma.