The High Court has substituted Stapleford Finance Limited for Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation) as plaintiff in proceedings seeking more than €5.7 million from Peter Lavelle under loan agreements. The order was procedural: it did not finally determine the validity of the assignment or the debt claim.
Justice Baker delivered the judgment on 21 May 2015. IBRC had sought summary judgment, and a motion for liberty to enter final judgment remained listed alongside Stapleford’s application. The court was deciding who could continue as plaintiff, not whether the money was owed.
Stapleford said it had bought Mr Lavelle’s credit facilities and related rights from IBRC. The judge found that the loan sale agreement and deed of transfer, together with written notice to Mr Lavelle, provided sufficient evidence at this stage of an assignment under section 28(6) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877. The materials included the defendant’s loans in schedules and referred to loan facilities and ancillary rights and claims.
That was a prima facie assessment. The judgment expressly left Mr Lavelle free to challenge the assignment at the hearing of the substantive proceedings. The judge also noted that the borrower-identifying schedule had been produced in supplemental rather than initial affidavit evidence, and said any argument about that could be dealt with at trial.
The defendant opposed removing IBRC, though he did not object to IBRC and Stapleford continuing as co-plaintiffs. Justice Baker concluded that Order 15 did not empower her to substitute Stapleford. She held, however, that Order 17 rule 4 permitted substitution following a legal assignment that changed ownership of the loan rights. She therefore made the order under Order 17 rule 4.
Mr Lavelle also relied on an alleged counterclaim or set-off connected to an investment vehicle he said IBRC had mis-sold. The alleged claim was not formulated in the debt proceedings, and leave required to bring proceedings against IBRC had not been sought. The judge rejected the argument that it required IBRC to remain as plaintiff, but made no decision on whether that claim could proceed, whether it could be heard with the debt case, or whether enforcement might be stayed if it did.
The judgment records no final decision on the summary judgment motion or the alleged counterclaim. Those matters remained for later proceedings or applications.