The High Court has added Everyday Finance Designated Activity Company as a plaintiff in Allied Irish Banks’ case against Paddy McKeown and Adelaide McCarthy. The order concerns who may participate in the proceedings; it does not decide any future application by Everyday to enforce the judgment.
Mr Justice David Barniville delivered the ruling on 1 April 2020. Everyday initially sought to replace AIB as plaintiff, or alternatively to join the case. During the hearing it pursued only the second option. The judge granted joinder under Order 17, rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
AIB had begun summary proceedings in January 2017. In May that year, the High Court granted judgment against Mr McKeown for €1,469,251.43 and against Ms McCarthy for €1,467,102.96, and awarded costs against the defendants. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal, and the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The judge said the findings in the original summary judgment were no longer open to challenge by the defendants.
AIB, AIB Mortgage Bank and EBS Designated Activity Company transferred assets to Everyday under a deed dated 2 August 2018. Everyday said the transfer included the facilities, guarantees and security connected with the defendants’ loans. AIB sent “goodbye letters” on 8 August 2018, and Everyday later sent “hello letters” about the transferred facilities.
The defendants opposed joinder on several grounds, including objections to the motion’s wording, the identity of the AIB entity, the transfer documents and notices, and the possibility of an earlier arrangement involving Deutsche Bank. The judge rejected those objections for the purpose of the joinder application. He found that the motion’s errors were not fatal, that the relevant AIB entity was correctly identified, and that the transfer and notices were sufficiently supported by the material before him. He also said the Deutsche Bank material did not identify the particular facilities at issue.
The judge assessed Everyday’s entitlement on the balance of probabilities, although he said a prima facie standard could arguably apply where defendants retain the opportunity to contest an assignment at a later enforcement stage. He emphasised that adding Everyday as a plaintiff did not determine its entitlement to execute on the judgment. The defendants may raise relevant issues if Everyday later seeks enforcement; that question was left for the court dealing with any such application.