come across an interesting case there last week just saw it online did a blog
post on us it's on my website business and legal dot ie it's about a situation
where a lender Ulster Bank Limited dint a lotta money to mr. and mrs. burns and
they were seeking to enforce their security I think the amount by the time
it came to the high court was twenty seven million euros which is not small
potatoes by any means the background is that mr. and mrs. burns were pursued by
Ulster Bank limiters in 2013 on foot of guarantees that given to Ulster Bank for
loans for companies operated by mister mrs. burns
that was 2013 that Ulster Bank commenced legal proceedings then Ulster Bank sold
alone in 2015 the soldier to promontory o or Promotora Ireland er Promotora
limiters and promote Oread n having bought the loan in 2015 ended up in the
High Court in two thousand and twenty nineteen or twenty seeking judgment in
the sum of twenty seven million however mr. and mrs. burns resisted the
application for the judgment for summary judgment on the basis that the evidence
that was given the sworn affidavit evidence that was given by the gentlemen
working for Promotora or else working for capita services or whatever they
called them could provide secretarial services from Promotora
he didn't deal with mr. and mrs. burns he didn't work for the bank he didn't
work for Ulster Bank and he was giving evidence in his affidavit mr. mrs.
burned made a very good argument that this evidence was essentially hearsay
evidence and was inadmissible the only person who could swear or the only
outfit who could swear to the course of conduct between the parties and the
actual loan being Jew and only been granted and so on and so forth would
have been the original lender poster bike limiters and there is an exception
to that situation we're a lender a bank can rely on an
1879 I called the bankers books Evidence Act of 1960 or 1879 it provides an
exception to the hearsay rule Evidence Rule
it allows banks to establish the proof of a debt by reference to the books and
records of the bank and a course of dealing between the parties however in
this case promontory a' who had bought a loan from Ulster Bank were not a bank
and therefore could not rely on the bankers book Evidence Act 1879 and
therefore were not granted their judgment because the high court or the
Court of Appeal held that it was hearsay evidence rule and promontory a were
denying judgment of 27 million euros against mr. mrs. Byrne now none of
what's gonna happen now I'm sure mr. mrs. burns hasn't got off
scot-free with the law under 27 million but I don't know I presumed that Croma
Toria having bought the law and will now go back to Ulster Bank and somehow ask
alster bank to square up and suppose or make affidavits where affidavits
essentially selling optimization and perhaps allow them to on in that way
obtain summary judgment based on or grounded on the affidavits of Ulster
Bank officials or Ulster Bank authorized personnel but the interestingly the 1879
night the bankers books ever in fact of 1879 as I say provides an exception to
the hearsay evidence rule but it is only open to banks it is not open to outfits
company's concerns which by loans for example promote Oriya and an interesting
case the full decision is on my website business and legal that ie and obviously
it's a case that will be of interest to anybody who has debts hanging over them
or are concerned about judgments or judgment mortgages or judgment that's
been registered against them or being obtained against them and so on and so
forth I've seen a lot of people trying to resist the
applications by lenders for summary judgments and I haven't seen too many of
them succeeding however this one has succeeded and it succeeded because it
was actually the bank who was finishing off the application or finishing off the
proceedings it was the company Promotora to whom the
bank had sold a loan so that is sort of a loophole as I say they may come back
again for another bite another nibble and it'll be grounded I presume on the
evidence stand of bankers from Ulster Bank who will probably spare the
affidavits I presume that's what's going to happen I presumed that even if they
only bought the loan for five million or ten million or 15 million or whatever
that they're simply not gonna just walk away from our who knows - interesting
case it's worth having a look at if debt or judgments summary judgments are of
concern to you it's on my website business and legal Hawaii if you find
this video useful I would appreciate if you gave the thumbs up down below thanks