Moore & anor -v- Tennant & ors [2016] IEHC 498 (08 July 2016)

Moore & anor -v- Tennant & ors [2016] IEHC 498 (08 July 2016)

The court refused to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim against the third named defendant because, taking the plaintiffs’ case at its highest and given the limited disclosure of communications, it could not be confidently determined that the claim would not succeed at trial.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 498
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Moore; Plaintiff: Leslie Moore; Defendant: Stephen Tennant; Defendant: Danske Bank SA T/A Danske Bank; Defendant: Finsbury Circle Nominee Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Plenary Summons / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Rights of Redemption, Actual Occupation, Receiver's Authority, Registration of Title
Property Law Land Registration Mortgage Law Strike Out Application Rights of Redemption Actual Occupation Receiver's Authority Registration of Title

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Moore

Plaintiff

Leslie Moore

Plaintiff

Stephen Tennant

Defendant

Danske Bank SA T/A Danske Bank

Defendant

Finsbury Circle Nominee Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Summons / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claim against the third named defendant is bound to fail and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' alleged right to redeem the mortgage constitutes a burden under s.72(1)(j) of the Registration of Title Act 1964
  3. 3 Whether the third named defendant was required to enquire about the plaintiffs' rights under s.108(5) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim against the third named defendant because, taking the plaintiffs’ case at its highest and given the limited disclosure of communications, it could not be confidently determined that the claim would not succeed at trial.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Plaintiffs directed to issue a motion seeking directions returnable to the court on 28 July 2016 with a suggested timeline for plenary trial.