Allied Irish Banks Plc v King
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Max Barrett |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 287 |
| Docket Number | 2015 No. 271 S |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 03 May 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 287
THE HIGH COURT
Barrett J.
2015 No. 271 S
AND
Stay on execution – O.42, r.36, RSC – Relief – Plaintiff seeking relief under O.42, r.36, RSC – Whether the three-month stay on execution operated to prevent the plaintiff from issuing the motion seeking relief
Facts: The plaintiff, Allied Irish Banks plc (AIB), on 12.07.2018, obtained a debt judgment against the defendants, Mr and Ms King (the Kings). The relevant order came subject to a three-month stay on execution. On 3.08.2018, AIB wrote to the Kings seeking information concerning a particular land transfer. The Kings’ solicitor replied by letter of 28.08.2018 that AIB was not entitled to the information sought, and noting the three-month stay. On 5.10.2018, within the three-month period, AIB issued a motion seeking relief under O.42, r.36, RSC. The Kings contended that the stay operated to prevent AIB from issuing that motion (which underpinned the application). A key issue presented between the parties concerning the effect of an order of stay.
Held by the High Court (Barrett J) that AIB’s ‘rush’ to make application came but seven days before the expiry of the period of the stay; additionally, the said period had long elapsed, and the factual position presenting was akin to that contemplated by Finlay Geoghegan J in AIB plc v O’Reilly [2015] IECA 209, para.18, rendering AIB prima facie entitled to the order it had come seeking.
Barrett J held that, in all the circumstances, the order should and would be granted.
Order granted.
On 12.07.2018, AIB obtained a debt judgment against the Kings. The relevant order came subject to a three-month stay on execution. On 3.08.2018, AIB wrote to the Kings seeking information concerning a particular land transfer. The Kings” solicitor replied by letter of 28.08.2018 that AIB was not entitled to the information sought, and noting the three-month stay. On 5.10.2018, i.e. within the three-month period, AIB issued a motion seeking relief under O. 42, r.36, RSC. The Kings contend that the stay operated to prevent AIB from issuing that motion (which underpins this application). A key issue now presenting between the parties concerns the effect of an order of stay. The court has been referred, inter alia, to White, Son & Pill v. Stennings [1911] KB 418, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AIlied Irish Bank Plc v King
...or at all.” High Court judgment 6 The Bank's motion came on for hearing on 29 April 2019 and was fully contested. In his judgment, [2019] IEHC 287, delivered on 3 May 2019, Barrett J. found that the Bank was not entitled to issue its motion before the expiration of the stay but nonetheless ......