The High Court has allowed Everyday Finance DAC to replace Allied Irish Banks plc as plaintiff in proceedings against Anthony Sheedy and granted it leave to execute a €2.6 million judgment obtained by AIB in 2017.
Mr Justice Barr ruled on 8 March 2024 that the loan had been transferred to Everyday Finance and that the 2018 settlement agreement between AIB and Mr Sheedy had not extinguished the judgment. The court granted the reliefs sought in the finance company’s motion, but left the terms of the final order and costs for written submissions. The case was listed for mention on 10 April 2024.
AIB obtained judgment against Mr Sheedy on 30 June 2017 for €2,601,519.20, plus costs, in proceedings over an unpaid loan. He appealed. In October 2018, the parties reached a settlement in separate Circuit Court possession proceedings. Under its terms, Mr Sheedy consented to an order for possession, stayed for 18 months while the property was marketed for sale. He also agreed to pay sums due on two loan accounts, as well as costs of the High Court and appeal proceedings, and to withdraw his appeal.
Everyday Finance applied in September 2020 to be substituted as plaintiff and for leave to execute the judgment. It relied on a deed of transfer and letters sent to Mr Sheedy in June 2019 notifying him that the loan had been transferred. The company argued that the settlement addressed the possession proceedings and did not surrender AIB’s rights under the judgment.
Mr Sheedy opposed the application. He argued that the settlement covered all disputes, that the loan transfer did not transfer the judgment, and that the heavily redacted deed did not establish Everyday Finance’s entitlement. He also challenged the evidence of an asset manager who gave evidence for the applicant.
The judge found that the settlement agreement concerned the possession case and did not extinguish the 2017 judgment. Its provisions for Mr Sheedy to withdraw his appeal and pay the costs of the High Court and appeal cases were inconsistent with the claim that the judgment had been surrendered. The court also held that a transfer of the underlying loan after judgment could carry the judgment with it, even where the deed did not mention the judgment expressly.
The court found sufficient evidence that the loan had been transferred and that the redactions did not prevent Mr Sheedy from contesting the application. It accepted that parts of the asset manager’s comments on the settlement’s legal effect were inadmissible opinion evidence, but said it did not rely on those comments in reaching its conclusions. An objection about stamp duty was withdrawn; a mootness objection was not pursued at the hearing.