The High Court has affirmed a Circuit Court order for possession of Patrick Cronin’s family home in Donnybrook, Dublin, but made no order as to the costs of the High Court appeal.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 29 February 2016, Mr Justice Twomey rejected Cronin’s appeal against the Circuit Court order of 28 January 2014. That order had granted possession to Bank of Scotland PLC. The judgment records that the proceedings’ title was later amended to name Tanager Limited as plaintiff.
The court considered evidence of the bank’s contacts with Cronin between November 2010 and July 2013, aimed at meeting obligations under the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears and the Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process. An affidavit submitted on behalf of the plaintiff said Cronin had made no substantive proposals during that period. The judgment states that Cronin did not deny the letters, calls or meetings.
Cronin’s appeal relied chiefly on his lack of legal representation at the Circuit Court hearing, which he did not attend, and on steps he took afterwards. His counsel submitted that, if represented, Cronin would have made proposals to meet the debt. Cronin’s affidavit of 25 February 2016 set out a proposed repayment schedule over 17 years. The judgment notes that the affidavit was not correctly filed or stamped, but that Tanager’s counsel did not object on that ground.
The court also heard that Cronin began repayments in October 2014 and had repaid more than €30,000 by the time of the appeal. Justice Twomey said overturning the order on the basis of later repayment proposals or lack of representation would give an advantage to unrepresented litigants over represented parties. He therefore affirmed the possession order and the Circuit Court’s order as to costs.
However, the judge acknowledged Cronin’s repayments and described the proposed schedule as appearing genuine, although made late. He said it offered Tanager a realistic way to resolve the matter without selling the property, if the company chose to pursue it. In recognition of those circumstances, the High Court made no order as to costs for the appeal.