or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court, on appeal from the Circuit Court: (a) refuses an order for discovery of materials concerning a company being substituted as plaintiff, on the grounds, inter alia, that the documents were not relevant to the matters at issue in the proceedings, and appeared to be a precursor to introducing new evidence on appeal; and (b) affirms an order substituting the new plaintiff to the action.
Appeal from the Circuit Court - legal effect of the order under appeal was to substitute the name of the plaintiff - grounding affidavit had also made reference to the need to seek the leave of the Circuit Court to issue execution in circumstances where more than six years have now elapsed since the date on which the order for possession was first made – relief not sought in the notice of motion - misunderstanding of the limited effect of the Circuit Court order – argued that given the history of the proceedings and, in particular, various negotiated settlements between the parties—it would be unfair to allow the order for possession to be pursued at this stage by a new party - matters which can be raised if and when the Plaintiff makes an application to extend time – not relevant to an application to add a party to the proceedings – procedural history - order for possession – appealed to the Circuit Court – agreement reached between the parties - Defendants would consent to an order for possession subject to a stay of six months – appeal struck out – plaintiff issued motion seeking to change name of plaintiff – relief granted – appealed lodged – issued a motion for discovery – argued that appeal should not be adjourned - delaying tactic – previous listings – discovery heard as part of the appeal – discovery refused - affidavit evidence only - documentation sought by way of discovery is irrelevant to the issue now before the court - whether there is a prima facie basis for substituting the new plaintiff on the basis of the transfer or assignment of assets - not evidence that is “new” or that could not have been discovered or disclosed at the relevant time - no suggestion at the time of the hearing before the Circuit Court that there was any reason that Mars Capital Ireland Ltd. was an unsuitable successor – Court refused the application for discovery and refused the implied application to adduce new evidence – application to substitute new plaintiff – rules of court - legal test governing an application to join a party to proceedings on the basis of an assignment of a loan or chose in action - prima facie demonstration of the transfer of the title of the loan facilities and underlying security - complied with the requirement for notice in writing – appeal dismissed - affirmed the order of the Circuit Court substituting the name of the plaintiff -
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.