The High Court has allowed Anthony Meehan and Brenda Meehan to amend their pleadings in a dispute concerning a mortgage repayment arrangement and the appointment of a receiver, and proposed transferring the proceedings from the Circuit Court to the High Court.
In a judgment delivered on 5 March 2024, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley considered the couple’s appeal from a Circuit Court order dated 14 November 2023. That order struck out their motion, refused permission to amend their Equity Civil Bill and Indorsement of Claim, and refused to transfer the claims.
The Meehans allege that, after they made six payments under a new alternative repayment arrangement, they were told their request to add about €5,500 in arrears to the mortgage balance would be reviewed. They say they sought that review in February 2019. Promontoria Scariff DAC later demanded repayment of €338,421.12, including arrears of €5,562.84, and allegedly appointed Stephen Tennant as receiver over the property. These are allegations described in the judgment, not findings on the underlying mortgage dispute.
The proposed amended pleadings add detail about the couple’s dealings with Ulster Bank and Cabot, their requests concerning the arrears, the demand and receivership, and alleged losses. The defendants opposed the changes, arguing they introduced a substantially different claim late in the proceedings and would prejudice their ability to defend it.
Justice Bradley found that the proposed amendments concerned the same general transaction and that the defendants had not established prejudice sufficient to refuse them. He said any prejudice could be addressed through terms, including costs and, if required, third-party discovery. The court allowed the amendment subject to the plaintiffs paying the defendants’ reasonable costs arising from it.
The judge also ruled that the proceedings could be transferred to the High Court. He noted that, if the case had remained within the Circuit Court’s civil jurisdiction without the parties’ consent to unlimited jurisdiction, any award would have been capped at €75,000. He proposed an order transferring the proceedings because the amended claim exceeded that limit.
The judgment set out further steps before the matter could progress: the parties were to seek agreement on the amendment costs or provide written submissions, and address whether a stay should apply. The court also reserved the appeal costs question and said it would hear the parties on ancillary or consequential matters arising from transfer. The case was listed for mention only on 19 March 2024. The judgment does not determine the underlying allegations or specify the later outcome of those outstanding matters.