Leeds Building Society -v- Brady & Anor [2017] IECA 271 (20 October 2017)
The appeal is dismissed because the only ground relied upon by the appellants was not argued in the High Court and is based on a step taken after the High Court hearing; in any event, the Directive and Regulations do not apply to the mortgage loan contract in question, so the purported cancellation is of no legal effect.
- Citation
- [2017] IECA 271
- Parties
- Plaintiff Respondent: Leeds Building Society; Defendant Appellant: Patrick Brady; Defendant Appellant: Margaret Brady
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 20 October 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Mortgage Possession, Appeal Procedure, Application of EU Consumer Directives, Admissibility of New Grounds on Appeal
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Leeds Building Society
Plaintiff Respondent
Patrick Brady
Defendant Appellant
Margaret Brady
Defendant Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants can rely on a new ground (purported cancellation under EC Directive 85/577) not raised in the High Court
- 2 Whether EC Directive 85/577 and the implementing Irish Regulations apply to the mortgage loan contract in question
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the only ground relied upon by the appellants was not argued in the High Court and is based on a step taken after the High Court hearing; in any event, the Directive and Regulations do not apply to the mortgage loan contract in question, so the purported cancellation is of no legal effect.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Order for possession stands
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment