The High Court has substituted Launceston Property Finance Limited for Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited in proceedings against Noel Comer and Deirdre Comer over a claim for €9,912,929.03.
Mr Justice Kelly made the order on 30 July 2014 after considering Launceston’s application under Order 15 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He said the application concerned a change of plaintiff following events after the proceedings began; it was not the trial of the claim.
The proceedings began by summary summons and were transferred to the Commercial List. In May 2014, the judge declined to grant summary judgment and sent the case for plenary hearing. The current application was supported by two affidavits from Launceston directors. The defendants had an opportunity to file replying affidavits but did not do so.
The affidavits said IBRC and its special liquidators agreed to sell a portfolio of facilities and related security to Launceston on 28 March 2014. A deed of transfer was executed on 23 May. The evidence also included a letter dated 6 June notifying the defendants of the transfer; the judgment records that a copy was handed to Mr Comer on 12 June.
The sale and transfer documents were exhibited in redacted form. The judge criticised the absence of an explanation for the redactions, while noting that the reason might be commercially sensitive and declining to speculate. During argument, it was accepted that the unredacted portions showed a sale and assignment. It was also accepted that the notice appeared on its face to meet the statutory requirements, assuming a valid underlying assignment.
The judge stressed that he was not deciding whether the sale, assignment or notice was valid or effective. For this procedural application, he needed prima facie evidence sufficient to justify substitution. He found that threshold met and ordered Launceston to replace IBRC as plaintiff.
The order ended IBRC’s entitlement to prosecute the proceedings and gave Launceston the entitlement to continue them, subject to proving its entitlement at trial. The defendants remain free to challenge the documents and raise issues about any alleged defects. The court did not decide the underlying claim or grant judgment for the amount sought.