Judgment: 2018-10-05 · Court archive

High Court allows lender’s name to be amended in possession proceedings

The court permitted Launceston Property Finance Limited to be renamed as Launceston Property Finance Designated Activity Company in the case title, relying on the company’s incorporation certificate and the Companies Act 2014.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 552

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Launceston Property Finance Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Lorna Burke (Defendant)
  • Launceston Property Finance Designated Activity Company
  • Robert Eagar (Judge)
What

The court permitted Launceston Property Finance Limited to be renamed as Launceston Property Finance Designated Activity Company in the case title, relying on the company’s incorporation certificate and the Companies Act 2014.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge was satisfied that the Companies Act 2014 justified amending the title. The judgment records that the application was allowed, but does not set out a separate formal order or address costs. It does not revisit the possession order or the Supreme Court’s decision.

The High Court has allowed the plaintiff’s name in possession proceedings against Frank and Lorna Burke to be amended from Launceston Property Finance Limited to Launceston Property Finance Designated Activity Company (DAC).

Mr Justice Robert Eagar made the order in a judgment delivered on 5 October 2018. The application, heard on 20 July 2018, concerned an amendment to the title of the proceedings. It did not determine a new possession claim.

The proceedings arose from an earlier possession order made by the High Court on 25 March 2010. Launceston Property Finance Limited had been substituted as plaintiff for Anglo Irish Bank Corporation by a Supreme Court order on 31 October 2014. The Supreme Court later dismissed an appeal and made a final order on 27 July 2017.

The lender said its name changed to a designated activity company following a certificate of incorporation dated 29 September 2016. Its counsel argued that the certificate was conclusive evidence of the company’s status under the Companies Act 2014 and that the proceedings could continue in the new name.

Lorna Burke objected that the lender had not explained why it waited more than 14 months after the certificate to bring the application, or why it had not applied to the Supreme Court. She argued that the earlier Supreme Court judgment and order were rendered null and void, and that the High Court motion was an abuse of process. The defendants also questioned how the lender’s application fitted the rule it relied on for changing parties in proceedings.

The judge was satisfied that the Companies Act 2014 justified amending the title. The judgment records that the application was allowed, but does not set out a separate formal order or address costs. It does not revisit the possession order or the Supreme Court’s decision.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review