The Court of Appeal has refused Kenmare Property Finance Limited’s application to replace Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation) as plaintiff in two appeals brought by Patrick Halpin. It instead added Kenmare as a second plaintiff and as a respondent to the appeals, limiting it to arguments IBRC could advance.
The appeals concern High Court judgments against Halpin, who was sued as guarantor of facilities granted by Irish Nationwide Building Society to Crossplan Investments Limited. In October 2012, the High Court entered summary judgment for €20 million and adjourned the balance of IBRC’s claim for a plenary hearing. After that hearing, the High Court in November 2013 entered judgment for a further €6,338,369.09. Both orders included costs. Halpin appealed both judgments; the appeal grounds included challenges to the summary judgment and to his liability for the further sum.
Kenmare relied on an agreement and deed of transfer under which, it said, IBRC transferred rights connected with the facilities and judgments. The transfer was completed in May 2014, after the High Court judgments. Kenmare accepted it had no interest in the facilities or claims when those judgments were given. Halpin opposed the application and challenged the assignment, relying on correspondence with IBRC’s special liquidators about the sale of the loans.
The Court said it had jurisdiction to make party-substitution orders, but had to exercise that power consistently with its appellate role. It refused substitution because the appeals require the court to assess whether IBRC was entitled to judgment on the evidence before the High Court at the relevant time. Replacing IBRC with Kenmare would make Kenmare the plaintiff in whose favour those earlier judgments were treated as having been granted, although Kenmare had no entitlement to judgment on those dates.
The court found Kenmare had shown a prima facie material interest in the appeals and allowed it to join while IBRC remained a plaintiff. Kenmare may participate only on arguments IBRC advanced in the High Court or may properly advance on appeal, based on the evidence before the High Court. The ruling did not decide whether the assignment was valid or whether Kenmare is entitled to the judgments.
If either appeal succeeds and a judgment is set aside, the court said Kenmare may pursue its claim in any further High Court proceedings. If the appeals are dismissed, Kenmare may apply to the High Court to enforce the existing judgments; its entitlement to do so would be decided there. The Court of Appeal also ordered an amendment to the title of the proceedings and said it would hear counsel on whether amended pleadings were needed.