The High Court has added Promontoria (Oyster) DAC as a co-plaintiff in Ulster Bank’s case against Timothy Quirke and Joan Quirke, and granted Promontoria leave to execute the existing judgment against them.
Ms Justice Butler’s judgment, delivered on 19 March 2021, concerns a €73,685.32 judgment entered in March 2009 over money lent by Ulster Bank. The debt arose mainly from a loan account, with a smaller part relating to an overdraft. The defendants had acknowledged the amount claimed in an affidavit during the original proceedings.
Ulster Bank transferred its interest in the loan account to Promontoria in 2016. The overdraft account was not transferred. The judge found that the loan account was listed in the transfer documents and that Promontoria had established a change or transmission of interest sufficient to be added as a party. Ulster Bank remains a plaintiff; the court did not divide the judgment between the loan and overdraft in its absence.
The defendants opposed the applications on several grounds, including that the transfer did not cover the relevant facility, that only part of a judgment could not be assigned, and that the 12-year limitation period had already expired. The judge rejected the limitation argument that the period should run from the Master of the High Court’s 2008 order granting liberty to enter final judgment. She held that the Master’s order was not itself a judgment: Ulster Bank entered judgment in the Central Office on 27 March 2009.
Promontoria said it had continued engaging with the defendants after the 2016 transfer. The judge accepted that explanation as a good reason for the delay in seeking leave to execute. She also noted that the application for leave does not itself take an execution step, and did not decide whether the 12-year limitation period would bar any later enforcement step.
The defendants also alleged that a settlement had been reached in related proceedings over the same debt. Promontoria disputed that claim. The judge excluded the without-prejudice correspondence and did not decide whether a settlement existed. She said the defendants could raise the issue before any execution; if established, it could have consequences for enforcement. The related proceedings seeking a well charging order over the secured land remained contested.
The court granted both applications: Promontoria was joined as co-plaintiff and received leave to issue execution of the judgment. The order permits enforcement steps but does not itself execute the judgment.