Judgment: 2021-07-16 · Court archive

High Court rejects borrowers’ bid to set aside 2017 AIB order and reverse property measures

High Court · [2021] IEHC 498

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Allied Irish Banks plc
  • Everyday Finance DAC (Plaintiff)
  • Paddy McKeown
  • Adelaide McCarthy (Defendant)
  • Ms Justice Costello
What

High Court rejects borrowers’ bid to set aside 2017 AIB order and reverse property measures

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has rejected a wide-ranging application by Paddy McKeown and Adelaide McCarthy seeking to set aside a 2017 AIB debt order, recover properties and obtain orders affecting property registrations.

The High Court has rejected a wide-ranging application by Paddy McKeown and Adelaide McCarthy seeking to set aside a 2017 AIB debt order, recover properties and obtain orders affecting property registrations.

The defendants brought the application in proceedings involving Allied Irish Banks plc and Everyday Finance DAC. They also sought to have papers sent by the court to the Director of Public Prosecutions and Interpol, alleging fraud, criminal contempt and other wrongdoing by parties involved in the loans, receivership and subsequent property transactions.

Mr Justice Brian O’Moore refused those requests. He said the defendants already held the material they wanted referred and could themselves send it to relevant authorities. More importantly, he was not satisfied they had established a sufficient basis for a court-directed referral. Many of the people accused of wrongdoing were also not parties to the motion and had no opportunity to answer the allegations.

The defendants further argued that an order made by Ms Justice Costello in May 2017 should be set aside because they had been unable to redeem the loans. The court found that Everyday’s servicing agents had supplied redemption figures in April 2020, which the defendants did not pay.

Mr Justice O’Moore also rejected the defendants’ assertion that the 2017 order effectively doubled the debt to €2.936 million. He explained that the order reflected joint and several liability: each defendant was liable for the debt, but any payment by one reduced the liability of the other by the same amount.

The court also refused requests for properties to be returned and for orders directing the Property Registration Authority to block registrations, provide documents or remove charges. The evidence did not support those remedies and the Authority had not been notified of the application.

All substantive reliefs sought in this motion were refused. Costs and any remaining matters were left for mention on 29 July 2021.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review