The High Court refused an adjournment sought by Gary Kane and Andrea Kane during the hearing of Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC’s application for a liquidated sum under a loan agreement.
In an ex tempore ruling delivered on 29 May 2025, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the defendants’ request came after the hearing had begun. The plaintiff was entitled to proceed with its application that day.
Mr Kane, who said he appeared for both defendants, handed in a one-page document after appearances were dealt with. The judge said it was not an affidavit and contained no evidence. It indicated that a complaint about alleged unfair, non-transparent and potentially void mortgage terms was in the process of being submitted to the provider and would ultimately be filed with the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO). Mr Kane also sought a stay under section 49 of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017.
The judge noted that the proceedings had begun almost two years earlier. The summary summons issued on 16 June 2023, and the motion before the court had issued on 9 August 2023. Both defendants had entered appearances, affidavits had been exchanged, and the hearing date had been assigned several months earlier.
The court recorded that Court 5 had been dedicated to the matter for a three-hour hearing, with a judge, registrar and the plaintiff’s counsel present. The judge said the proposed complaint appeared, on the face of the document, to be only at the stage of being submitted. He also observed that the defendants’ replying affidavits from 2023 and 2024 had not referred to an alleged unfair term. In those circumstances, he said it was difficult to see the request as other than an attempt at delay.
The judge said the interests of justice required the case to proceed that day, citing the public interest in efficient litigation and the use of scarce court resources. He also distinguished the claim from a mortgage-possession case: Mars Capital was seeking a liquidated sum under a loan agreement.
The court refused the adjournment. It did not determine the merits of the plaintiff’s application or the alleged unfair mortgage terms; it ruled that the application could proceed that day.