The High Court temporarily adjourned Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited’s €2,805,116.47 claim against Niall and Valerie Higgins, pending a French court’s decision on whether it has jurisdiction over proceedings brought by the couple.
In a judgment delivered on 23 April 2013, Mr Justice Cooke directed that the Irish case be re-listed on 23 July 2013, after a hearing scheduled in France for 24 June. The High Court did not enter judgment for the bank or finally decide whether the French proceedings and the Irish claim involved the same cause of action.
The bank’s summary summons, issued on 27 July 2012, sought the outstanding principal under four loan agreements made in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008. It claimed that €3,282,550.66 had been drawn down and that repayments of €477,434.19 had been credited. The claim excluded interest.
The Higginses, who appeared without lawyers, entered a conditional appearance to contest the Irish court’s jurisdiction. The judgment records that they had lived in France since 2004, where they acquired a private residence and investment properties secured under the loans. Their French proceedings, brought against Irish Nationwide Building Society in 2010, sought the forfeiture of interest under French consumer legislation and other relief.
The bank argued that the loan agreements contained clauses choosing Irish law and the exclusive jurisdiction of Irish courts. It also argued that the French case concerned interest and consumer-law claims, while the Irish action sought principal, so the two did not have the same cause of action. The couple argued that the cases concerned the same loans and were connected.
Cooke said the French court was first seised and had not yet determined its jurisdiction. Although the Irish clauses were valid under Irish law, the High Court could not disregard the earlier French proceedings. The French court had to consider whether it had jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation, including whether the loans qualified as consumer contracts.
The judge said the French case appeared to concern interest and possible damages, rather than the validity of the loans or repayment of principal. Subject to the French court’s ruling and proof of the correct principal balance after any required credits, the High Court said it would propose to grant the bank’s application if the French case was confined to those issues. That was a conditional indication, not an order for judgment. Either party could apply if the French ruling was unavailable.