The Court of Appeal dismissed Peter Lavelle’s appeal against an order substituting Stapleford Finance Limited as sole plaintiff in summary proceedings over loans transferred from Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (IBRC).
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2016, Ms Justice Costello said the High Court had power under Order 17, rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts to make the substitution. Justices Irvine and Sheehan also sat on the appeal.
IBRC had begun the proceedings against Mr Lavelle in 2013. In May 2014, its special liquidators transferred the loans at issue to Stapleford. The transfer was accepted to include the loans that were the subject of the proceedings. Stapleford then applied to replace IBRC as plaintiff. IBRC supported the application; Mr Lavelle opposed it.
The High Court granted the substitution in May 2015. On appeal, Mr Lavelle argued that the transfer was not an “event” within the meaning of rule 4, and that the rule’s reference to a change of interest was confined to interests in land or similar historical categories. He also argued that an assignee could not take over existing proceedings and would have to start a new case.
The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It held that the loan assignment was an event causing a change of interest under the rule. The court said there was no compelling reason to read the rule narrowly and noted that the rules of procedure should facilitate justice. It also considered that the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1877 and section 12 of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013 supported allowing an assignee of a cause of action or proceedings to be substituted.
The appeal concerned the court’s jurisdiction to make the substitution. The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court had that power and had not erred in law. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the substitution order in place. The judgment does not determine the underlying loan claim against Mr Lavelle.