The High Court found that Emberton Finance Limited had not established its standing to seek permission to submit a late claim against the proceeds of a property sale. It ordered Emberton to produce contractual or other documents proving its right to bring the application. The court did not grant special leave at this stage.
Emberton sought leave under Order 55, rule 36 of the Rules of the Superior Courts to submit a late claim to the Examiner’s Office. The claim related to a judgment for €28,805.12 plus costs of €644, obtained by Friends First Finance Limited against Raymond Costello in 2010 and registered as a judgment mortgage over his County Wexford property.
Friends First agreed to assign loan assets to Emberton in December 2013. A deed dated March 2014 transferred a portfolio of loans and related security documents, but did not specifically identify Costello’s debt. The court said Emberton had not provided the full contractual documents showing it succeeded to Friends First’s rights in this debt. An earlier order substituting Emberton for Friends First in other proceedings did not cover this case.
The application arose after Halston Street Credit Union obtained a separate judgment against Costello for just over €75,000 and began proceedings to have the property sold. Following a well-charging order in July 2012, claims against the property had to be entered with the Examiner by 20 September 2013. Halston Street’s solicitors also wrote to Friends First in August 2013, identifying its judgment mortgage and the claims deadline. Friends First made no claim by that date.
The court rejected Emberton’s suggestion that Friends First might have missed newspaper notices published in August 2013, noting that this did not explain its inaction after receiving the letter. It said any failure in the loan portfolio Emberton acquired could potentially be litigated between Emberton and Friends First, but should not be visited on Halston Street. The court found no special circumstance beyond the party’s control that would justify late submission. It also rejected Halston Street’s separate contention that Emberton had brought its application after inordinate and inexcusable delay.
The court’s order was conditional in its next steps: Emberton must produce documents adequate to establish standing. If satisfied with them, the court said it would decline to grant the requested special leave. Emberton may instead elect to abandon pursuit of the debt, avoiding the additional cost of producing the documents. The judgment also preserved Emberton’s right to appeal.