O' Rourke -v- Considine & Ors [2011] IEHC 191 (10 May 2011)

O' Rourke -v- Considine & Ors [2011] IEHC 191 (10 May 2011)

The plaintiff was not entitled to sue for recovery under the Loan Agreement as the assignment to BOSI and subsequent purported reassignment to the plaintiff were subject to clause 16, which required borrower consent for any assignment, including reassignment to the original lender. The reassignment without such...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 191
Parties
Plaintiff: Dermot O’Rourke; Defendant: Thomas Considine; Defendant: Patrick Sweeney; Defendant: Gerard Prendergast
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Contractual Rights, Interpretation of Commercial Contracts, Interest Rates in Loan Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Assignment of Contractual Rights Interpretation of Commercial Contracts Interest Rates in Loan Agreements

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dermot O’Rourke

Plaintiff

Thomas Considine

Defendant

Patrick Sweeney

Defendant

Gerard Prendergast

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to sue for recovery under the Loan Agreement after assignment and purported reassignment
  2. 2 Whether clause 16 of the Loan Agreement restricts reassignment to the original lender without borrower consent
  3. 3 Whether the interest rate agreed is unconscionable

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not entitled to sue for recovery under the Loan Agreement as the assignment to BOSI and subsequent purported reassignment to the plaintiff were subject to clause 16, which required borrower consent for any assignment, including reassignment to the original lender. The reassignment without such consent was ineffective to vest the benefit of the Loan Agreement in the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim