Morrin v Condon & Anor (Approved) [2020] IECA 81 (03 April 2020)

Morrin v Condon & Anor (Approved) [2020] IECA 81 (03 April 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that the sub-charge to the second defendant did not divest SPL of its rights as mortgagee to take possession and sell the lands. The mortgage deed and commitment letter expressly permitted sub-charging without notice to the plaintiff. No evidence of fraud, unconscionability, or breach of consumer protection law was pleaded or established in the High Court. New arguments raised on appeal could not be entertained. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] IECA 81
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Thomas Morrin; Defendant/respondent: Michael Condon; Defendant/respondent: Ronald Weisz
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgages, Sub Charges, Power of Sale, Fraud Allegations, Unconscionable Bargain, Consumer Protection, Appellate Procedure
Property Law Contract Law Banking and Finance Law Mortgages Sub Charges Power of Sale Fraud Allegations Unconscionable Bargain +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Morrin

Plaintiff/appellant

Michael Condon

Defendant/respondent

Ronald Weisz

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sub-charge by SPL to the second defendant divested SPL of its rights as mortgagee to take possession and sell the lands.
  2. 2 Whether the Consent to possession and subsequent sale were invalid due to lack of notice of the sub-charge to the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the Mortgage Deed or Consent were vitiated by fraud, unconscionability, or breach of consumer protection law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the sub-charge to the second defendant did not divest SPL of its rights as mortgagee to take possession and sell the lands. The mortgage deed and commitment letter expressly permitted sub-charging without notice to the plaintiff. No evidence of fraud, unconscionability, or breach of consumer protection law was pleaded or established in the High Court. New arguments raised on appeal could not be entertained. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claims dismissed in full
  • No order setting aside the Deed of Transfer or Mortgage Deed