Irish Life & Permanent TSB t/a Permanent TSB -v- McMahon & anor [2015] IEHC 378 (12 May 2015)

Irish Life & Permanent TSB t/a Permanent TSB -v- McMahon & anor [2015] IEHC 378 (12 May 2015)

The court found that all procedural objections raised by the defendants were unfounded, that the summary judgment procedure was fair and did not breach constitutional or ECHR rights, that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on copy documents under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Acts, and that neither alleged breaches of Central Bank codes nor questions of the bank's solvency provided a defence. The only remaining issue was whether securitisation of the loan provided a defence, which was adjourned for further affidavits and argument.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 378
Parties
Plaintiff: Irish Life & Permanent TSB t/a Permanent TSB; Defendant: Patrick McMahon; Defendant: Angela McMahon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Summary Summons / Interim Judgment on Summary Judgment Application; Further Hearing Adjourned
Outcome
Interim judgment; all defences except securitisation rejected; matter adjourned for further hearing on securitisation issue.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Loan Enforcement, Securitisation, Jurisdiction, Service of Process, Bankers' Books Evidence, Central Bank Codes, Fair Procedures
Banking Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Loan Enforcement Securitisation Jurisdiction Service of Process Bankers' Books Evidence +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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irish Life & Permanent TSB t/a Permanent TSB

Plaintiff

Patrick McMahon

Defendant

Angela McMahon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Summons / Interim Judgment on Summary Judgment Application; Further Hearing Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction given alleged defects in service and appearance
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment procedure breached defendants' rights to fair procedures
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff had standing to sue after securitisation of loan

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all procedural objections raised by the defendants were unfounded, that the summary judgment procedure was fair and did not breach constitutional or ECHR rights, that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on copy documents under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Acts, and that neither alleged breaches of Central Bank codes nor questions of the bank's solvency provided a defence. The only remaining issue was whether securitisation of the loan provided a defence, which was adjourned for further affidavits and argument.

Court Disposition

Interim judgment; all defences except securitisation rejected; matter adjourned for further hearing on securitisation issue.

Orders

  • Defendants' procedural and substantive objections (except securitisation) rejected.
  • Further affidavits and arguments on securitisation to be filed; hearing adjourned to 15 June 2015.