The Court of Appeal has ordered Everyday Finance DAC to produce for inspection the original deeds it relies on to assert rights over Aidan Farrell’s loans and mortgage securities, as well as the mortgage sale agreement incorporated into one of those deeds.
In a judgment delivered on 26 January 2024, Ms Justice Máire Whelan said Farrell’s March 2021 notice to produce documents was sufficient to cover the Mortgage Sale Agreement dated 16 May 2018. The agreement had not been identified by date when the notice was served, and the court said Everyday’s initial redactions had prevented Farrell from identifying it sooner.
Everyday must produce the two Global Deeds of Transfer, dated 2 August 2018 and 22 October 2018, in the less-redacted form exhibited in an affidavit filed in July 2022. Farrell’s solicitors may inspect the originals and take copies. Everyday may retain redactions already permitted in those deeds to protect third-party information.
The Mortgage Sale Agreement must be produced otherwise unredacted. Everyday may redact information identifying unrelated third parties or material that does not relate to Farrell, his loans or his mortgaged properties. The court said the agreement was incorporated by reference into the first Global Deed and was relevant to issues pleaded in Farrell’s case.
Farrell disputes Everyday’s acquisition of his loans and securities and pleads that he had rights connected to restructuring and buying out the loans. Those are claims in the underlying High Court proceedings, not findings made in this appeal. Everyday contends that it acquired the loans and securities and is entitled to exercise its rights under the mortgages.
The appeal concerned an interlocutory application for inspection, not the final determination of those claims. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had erred by refusing to order production of the three documents. It did not decide Farrell’s claims under section 91 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, which remain part of the substantive proceedings. It also rejected his grounds concerning the High Court’s decision not to rely on its inherent jurisdiction and his ground concerning Order 50, rule 4.
Everyday’s cross-appeal against the High Court’s costs order was dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s proposed costs order for the appeal was two-thirds of Farrell’s costs, with the costs of the unsuccessful cross-appeal also payable to him. The court stayed the proposed appeal costs order pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings and invited written submissions if either party sought a different order.