The High Court declared that service of a summons on Maurice McIlwraith was sufficient, rejecting his challenge to the service and his argument that the Brussels I Regulation (recast) applied.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 6 June 2019 in proceedings brought by BAC Florida Bank against Maurice McIlwraith and Anne Marie McIlwraith. The bank sought the euro equivalent of US$96,442.14, which it said was due under a 2006 loan agreement, as later modified. The loan was secured by a mortgage on property in Orlando.
The judgment recounts that the defendants defaulted on repayments and that the bank obtained a foreclosure judgment in Florida in February 2014. After crediting the assessed value of the property, the remaining balance was US$93,831.14. A Florida final judgment for US$96,442.14, including interest and costs, issued on 21 October 2014.
The source states that judgment was entered in Ireland against Mr McIlwraith in default of appearance for €80,149 and €396 in costs. It gives the date as 8 January 2018 in one passage, but later refers to the judgment as having been obtained on 8 January 2017. Mr McIlwraith’s motion, issued on 19 October 2018, sought to set aside that judgment.
Mr McIlwraith argued that the summons had not been duly served. The court noted that correspondence showed he had received a copy and acted by reference to it over time. The dispute was whether, when the copy was served on 19 July 2017, he was also shown the original summons bearing the High Court seal. Mr McIlwraith said he was not; the summons server said he was, but that he did not want to examine it.
The court concluded that the purpose of service had been met and that Mr McIlwraith had been adequately informed of the summons without prejudice. Acting under Order 9, rule 15 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, it declared the service effected sufficient.
The court also rejected Mr McIlwraith’s Brussels I Regulation argument. It said the proceedings involved a third-country bank suing an Irishman in Ireland, with no cross-EU dimension. The judgment does not state the final disposition of the motion to set aside beyond ruling on the service and Regulation arguments.