Stapleford Finance Ltd -v- Lavelle [2016] IEHC 385 (06 July 2016)

Stapleford Finance Ltd -v- Lavelle [2016] IEHC 385 (06 July 2016)

The defendant is not entitled to defend on the grounds of the Statute of Limitations or lack of proof of assignment, as the assignment and substitution were valid and did not create a new cause of action. However, the defendant has raised an arguable defence that he may be a consumer under the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and that the quantum of the claim is disputed, both of which require plenary hearing.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 385
Parties
Plaintiff: Stapleford Finance Limited; Defendant: Peter Lavelle
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / High Court Judgment on Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Defendant granted leave to defend except on Statute of Limitations and proof of assignment; summary judgment refused on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Assignment of Debt, Statute of Limitations, Consumer Credit Act 1995, Consumer Status in Loan Agreements, Proof of Assignment, Calculation of Debt Quantum
Banking Law Contract Law Consumer Protection Summary Judgment Assignment of Debt Statute of Limitations Consumer Credit Act 1995 Consumer Status in Loan Agreements +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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stapleford Finance Limited

Plaintiff

Peter Lavelle

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / High Court Judgment on Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is statute barred due to substitution outside limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has proven assignment of the debt from IBRC
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is a consumer under the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and related EU law

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is not entitled to defend on the grounds of the Statute of Limitations or lack of proof of assignment, as the assignment and substitution were valid and did not create a new cause of action. However, the defendant has raised an arguable defence that he may be a consumer under the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and that the quantum of the claim is disputed, both of which require plenary hearing.

Court Disposition

Defendant granted leave to defend except on Statute of Limitations and proof of assignment; summary judgment refused on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Defendant permitted to defend the claim except as regards the Statute of Limitations and proof of assignment.