The High Court has refused Jeremiah O’Shea’s applications to set aside the substitution of Everyday Finance DAC as plaintiff in a debt case and to strike out the proceedings for abuse of process or delay. Mr Justice Conor Dignam delivered the ex tempore judgment on 12 February 2025.
The case began in 2007, when Allied Irish Banks (AIB) sought €119,552.41 plus interest on three loan accounts. The proceedings were adjourned generally in 2010, but the court said it was unclear whether the order adjourned the application for judgment or the proceedings themselves, and whether it allowed them to be re-entered. No copy of that order was available.
AIB later brought separate Circuit Court proceedings for possession of lands securing the same facilities. Everyday was substituted for AIB in those proceedings in 2024. On 29 July 2024, the High Court made an ex parte order substituting Everyday in the debt case. Mr O’Shea sought to set it aside and to strike out the High Court case.
The judge rejected the argument that maintaining both cases was an abuse of process. The High Court claim was for an alleged debt; the Circuit Court case sought possession under a mortgage. The fact that both arose from the same loan facilities did not make them the same claim, the judge said.
However, the substitution order did not restart or revive the dormant debt proceedings, nor did it remove the need for an application to re-enter them. Everyday would have to apply to re-enter if it wished to pursue the case. Mr O’Shea remains entitled to oppose that application, including by arguing about whether the 2010 order allowed re-entry and whether the delay weighs against it.
The judge also declined to set aside the substitution order because Everyday had not disclosed the delay and the related Circuit Court proceedings in its ex parte application. He said full disclosure of relevant matters was required, but concluded those facts were not material to deciding whether there was prima facie evidence that AIB’s interest had transferred to Everyday. Even if they should have been disclosed, he found the omission did not justify setting aside the order.
Everyday accepted that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable. The judge nevertheless found that Mr O’Shea had not shown prejudice caused by the delay: the specific prejudice identified was having to face two sets of proceedings, which arose from the existence of both cases, not the delay. The judge therefore refused to strike out the debt proceedings.
The judgment’s preliminary view was that there should be no order as to costs. Either party could make an application or submissions on costs; no final costs order was made.