Ulster Bank DAC v McDonagh (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 265 (06 November 2023)

Ulster Bank DAC v McDonagh (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 265 (06 November 2023)

The defendants failed to timely serve notice for cross-examination and did not establish that cross-examination was relevant or necessary; the Bank satisfied all statutory proofs for well charging orders and order for sale; no authority requires valuation evidence or full disclosure of profit participation agreement; the appeals are dismissed as no error was demonstrated in the High Court judgment.

Citation
[2023] IECA 265
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Ulster Bank Ireland DAC; Defendant/appellant: Brian McDonagh; Defendant/appellant: Maurice McDonagh; Defendant/appellant: Kenneth McDonagh
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Judgment Mortgage, Well Charging Order, Order for Sale, Cross Examination, Discretionary Relief, Profit Participation Agreement, Valuation Evidence
Property Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Judgment Mortgage Well Charging Order Order for Sale Cross Examination Discretionary Relief +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ulster Bank Ireland DAC

Plaintiff/respondent

Brian McDonagh

Defendant/appellant

Maurice McDonagh

Defendant/appellant

Kenneth McDonagh

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing cross-examination of the Bank's deponent.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to properly apply equitable principles in granting relief to the Bank.
  3. 3 Whether the Bank was required to provide valuation evidence or disclose the profit participation agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to timely serve notice for cross-examination and did not establish that cross-examination was relevant or necessary; the Bank satisfied all statutory proofs for well charging orders and order for sale; no authority requires valuation evidence or full disclosure of profit participation agreement; the appeals are dismissed as no error was demonstrated in the High Court judgment.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • well charging orders affirmed
  • order for sale affirmed