Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Did Ulster Bank actual sell their mortgages to Promontoria ( Aran ) Ltd ?

  • 29-12-2016 5:08pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭


    It appears, with a bit of investigation, that on the 16/12/2014, Ulster Bank Ireland Limited actually assigned all it' rights, title, interest and benefit to a tranche of it's mortgages to Promontoria Holding 128 B.V. and not Promontoria Aran Ltd as alleged by the bank. Is this fraudulent misrepresentation on behalf of Ulster Bank ? Just what is actually going on ?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/213808a4047630048025807900597099?OpenDocument
    27. The factual position in respect of the purported transfer is unclear. According to the evidence on 16th December, 2014 UBIL sold to Promontoria Holding 128 B.V. all its rights, title, interest and benefit in its mortgage over the plaintiff’s lands. The sale was effected by way of a mortgage sale deed. On 12th February, 2015, UBIL together with the other named Ulster Bank entities purported to sell to Promontoria (Aran) Limited the same mortgage which UBIL had already sold to Promontoria Holding 128 B.V. two months earlier. There is reference in the evidence to a deed of novation also dated 12th February, 2015 between unnamed parties which deed may explain how UBIL, having sold its interest in the plaintiff’s mortgage to Promontoria Holding 128 B.V. in December, 2014, was able to sell the same mortgage to Promontoria (Aran) Limited two months later. Without sight of the mortgage sale deed of 16th December, 2014 and the deed of novation of 12th February, 2015 it is not possible to assess the validity of the purported transfer by UBIL and associated entities to Promontoria (Aran) Limited on 12th February, 2015.

    28. A further element of confusion and uncertainty arises from the contents of the instrument of appointment of the receiver dated 6th November, 2015. The recital in the deed detailing the basis of the entitlement of Promontoria (Aran) Limited to appoint a receiver (which is clumsily drafted and as a minimum contains an unnecessary and confusing “were” after the words “Security Document” on the third last line) indicates that the alleged right to appoint a receiver derives from a transfer by Promontoria Holding 128 B.V. of its interest to Promontoria (Aran) Limited. It is not at all clear how that transfer arises particularly when the only documents that have been produced to the Court and to the plaintiff suggest that Promontoria (Aran) Limited’s rights (if any) derive from a direct transfer from UBIL and associated Ulster Bank entities, to Promontoria (Aran) Limited.

    29. In considering the basis of the purported instrument of appointment, it is interesting to note that the registration of the transfer of the plaintiff’s mortgage in the Registry of Deeds does not refer to a transfer between Promontoria Holding 128 B.V. and Promontoria (Aran) Limited, as does the instrument of appointment of the receiver, but rather to a transfer between UBIL and the other Ulster Bank entities and Promontoria (Aran) Limited. The details of the transfer were registered on 30th November, 2015, some weeks following the execution of the instrument of appointment of the receiver.

    30. There may well be a perfectly good explanation for the apparent uncertainty and potential confusion as to the manner in which Promontoria (Aran) Limited acquired its claimed entitlement to appoint a receiver to the plaintiff’s property. If so, that explanation with appropriate supporting documents should be proffered to the plaintiff. It is for Promontoria (Aran) Limited to demonstrate to the plaintiff that it is in fact entitled to appoint a receiver to his property before it can require him to cede possession of his property to its receiver. To date, in the Court’s view, it has not done so. Insofar as reliance appears to be placed on the mortgage sale deed of 16th December, 2014 and a deed of novation of 12th February, 2015, those documents should be disclosed.

    Decent summary here:-

    http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2a4b91ae-aca6-4191-9ac6-978e1a470767


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    On top of that there is a charge over shares dated 12th February 2015 between Promontoria Holding 128 B.V. ( the chargor ) and Capita Trust Company Limited ( the security company ) in guess who - Promontoria Aran Limited. The plot thickens, and yes, Capita Trust Company Limited is a subsidiary of Capita Services, the company that is the credit servicing firm for Promontoria Aran.


  • Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Aka Ishur


    On top of that there is a charge over shares dated 12th February 2015 between Promontoria Holding 128 B.V. ( the chargor ) and Capita Trust Company Limited ( the security company ) in guess who - Promontoria Aran Limited. The plot thickens, and yes, Capita Trust Company Limited is a subsidiary of Capita Services, the company that is the credit servicing firm for Promontoria Aran.

    What plot?


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    The plot by vulture funds to extract monies ( tax free ) from the State by deleveraging distressed Irish property debt by using loan participating notes issued through Dutch owned subsidiaries. It's illegal state aid in tax avoidance, plain and simple. I hope the European Commission investigate. Michael Noonan the patriot !


  • Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Aka Ishur


    Distressed loans are hardly profit making, in fact, UBDAC will probably be paying more tax with the liabilities off the books. The net benefit being the cost of insuring those liabilities go down. Anyways you wont believe anyone telling you different so why am I typing....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    Distressed loan are very profitable, especially when buy them at a steep discount. In Ireland, if I acquire an investment property, I have to pay tax on any rents received. I have to pay tax on any capital appreciation, not so if I am a vulture fund. Why on God's earth would a vulture fund buy Irish distressed assets- to make a loss. You need to cop yourself on and look at the reality of the situation. It's win win for the vulture funds. I must add that I am looking at this from the vulture funds perspective and not UBDAC's.


  • Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Aka Ishur


    Sheeple right?

    Mod
    How does this remark advance the debate?
    Pls keep it civil


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    Huh?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 M_D_88


    Where do we see this going?


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    Into a legal quagmire


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    GM228 wrote: »
    I don't really understand why the deed of 16 December 2014 and 12 February 2015 weren't just disclosed. Laziness?

    That sounds like a very normal transaction to me whereby one company who purchased the UBIL debt and then moved it into another related company responsible for enforcement.

    Promontoria Holding 128 BV doesn't appear to be an Irish company, so they novated to an Irish company.

    I don't see the grand conspiracy - surely they disclose the deed and novation and problem solved?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 M_D_88


    Promontoria 128 b.v are on the Slavenburg register, does that not have any effect?


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    I don't really understand why the deed of 16 December 2014 and 12 February 2015 weren't just disclosed. Laziness?

    That sounds like a very normal transaction to me whereby one company who purchased the UBIL debt and then moved it into another related company responsible for enforcement.

    Promontoria Holding 128 BV doesn't appear to be an Irish company, so they novated to an Irish company.

    I don't see the grand conspiracy - surely they disclose the deed and novation and problem solved?

    Problem far from solved. The ultimate owner of these loans is Cerberus Capital Management, they are an American company, based in New York. In the good auld USA, like Ireland, there are tax evasion and tax avoidance rules. However, unlike Ireland, aggressive tax avoidance is classed as a federal crime. Aggressive tax avoidance, includes the setting up of company structures solely set up for the purpose of avoiding paying U.S. taxes.

    Now let us look at what happened with the purchase of Ulster bank distressed debt, by a company called Promontoria Holdings b.v. a special purchase vehicle company structure set up by Cerberus. Let us look at the time line of events:

    Time – Line of events for Mr English in English V Promontoria Aran Ltd.

    8 November 2007 – the borrower, Mr English, entered into a mortgage agreement with Ulster Bank Ireland Limited in respect of unregistered lands in County Tipperary.

    August 2008 – March 2011 – Mr English entered into a series of facility agreements with UBIL.

    16 December 2014 – UBIL entered into a mortgage sale deed in respect of Mr English’s lands with Promontoria Holding 128 BV (PH). This deed was apparently the subject of a deed of novation on 12 February 2015.

    12 February 2015 – UBIL and three related entities executed a global deed of transfer and a deed of conveyance and assignment transferring to PAL all rights, title, interest and benefits in the facility letters and mortgage relating to Mr English.

    22 September 2015 and 16 October 2015 – PAL issued letters of demand to Mr English.

    6 November 2015 – PAL appointed a receiver over Mr English’s lands.

    10 November 2015 – Mr English issued a plenary summons claiming that PAL was not legally entitled to hold itself out as being entitled to UBIL’s interest in the facility letters or the underlying security.

    16 November 2015 – PAL provided Mr English with a redacted copy of the global deed of transfer and a redacted copy of the conveyance and assignment. Copies of the mortgage sale deed and deed of novation were not provided.

    30 November 2015 – the transfer of mortgage from UBIL to PAL was registered in the Registry of Deeds.

    Now back to Promontoria Holding B.V and Promontoria Aran Ltd. Cerberus lent money to Promontoria Holding B.V. who in turn lent this money to Promontoria Aran Ltd ( PAL ) utilising profit participating loan notes. In other words, if PAL make 31% profit in 2016 Promontoria Holding B.v. 128 (PH) will charge them 31% interest on the loan. If in 2017, PAL only make 17% profit, PH will charge them 17% and so forth and so on. So PAL never makes a profit, so it never has any substantial tax liability to the Irish State ( the Irish State has facilitated this with section 110 company structures, Qifs, ICAV's etc )

    So now all the lolly is with Promontoria Holding B.V. 128 ( PH ) in Holland. Due to Dutch law, as the profits where made in another E.U. company and all appropriate taxes have been paid ( not ), PH is not liable for Dutch tax ( protected by double tax treaty as well ). What happens to the money now ? Well if it is repatriated to the U.S.A. the monies will be liable for the appropriate US taxes and Cerberus would certainly not want that, seeing that they went to all the bother of setting up these company structures to avoid paying tax in the first place.

    So the monies are sent to the Caribbean, to an Island like the Cayman islands, where it sits tax free. If a US investor in Cerberus global wants to extract a million or two ( for living expenses ), the Caribbean company or it's affiliate sends them a preloaded Credit Card to the value of whatever is sought. U.S. treasury are still in the blind and still no US tax has been paid.

    Now comes the big question ? Did Cerberus set up these company structures ( PAL, PH, etc ) solely for the purpose to avoid paying US tax ? I will let readers answer this question themselves. Is it a so called sham structure to avoid paying tax ? If PAL show too much of how they set up these company structures to the Irish Courts, U.S. Treasury will be alerted that the structure is indeed a sham structure and has no legitimate commercial reason for existing in this particular configuration. ( save solely to reduce or to eliminate it's tax liabilities )

    I have already opened dialogue with the Securities and Exchange Commission about these structures, I will keep readers posted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭dar100


    Brilliant good man


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    At a minimum, the Irish State is guilty (plain and simple) of illegal state aid to these vulture funds, I think Michael O' Flynn and others are taking legal action against the State in this regard. This court case will be watched closely by the US treasury and the SEC.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    Thanks for that summary, Forbearance


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 M_D_88


    Great summary, in terms of the Mr English case has there been any further activity?


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    nuac wrote: »
    Thanks for that summary, Forbearance

    Too bad it's complete claptrap from the first paragraph.

    Granted, the poster can copypasta the timeline, but the rest is unmitigated bull**** with no basis in law.


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    I am afraid, it is you who is excreting out of your facial orafice.

    1. Aggressive tax avoidance in the USA is a federal crime.

    2. Contact the IRS and ask them what a sham tax structure is.

    3. Michael O Flynn and others are taking a case against The Irish State to Europe with regard to illegal state aid given by the Irish State to these vulture funds.

    4. You need to read up on the law, Ireland has moved away from the common law tradition years ago ( although you may not have ). Believe it or not, this Country signed up to the Lisbon and Maastricht treaties, this allows European law to supercede contact and even Irish constitutional law, tell that to your friends in the bank.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Mod:

    Forbearance,

    Please post in a civil manner or do not post at all.

    Please do not reply to this post.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    1. Aggressive tax avoidance in the USA is a federal crime.
    No, it is not. If it were, you'd cite the legislation - you can't and you won't.

    "Aggressive tax avoidance" is lawful mitigation of taxes through multi-jurisdictional lawful methods.

    Tax evasion is a Federal crime pursuant to 26 U.S. Code § 7201, where it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a "person willfully attempt[ed] in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed [by the IRS]".

    2. Contact the IRS and ask them what a sham tax structure is.
    There is no such thing; I think you mean a sham tax transaction.

    Firstly, it's established case law since the 50s that intra-corporate sale of stock at loss is not evidence of a sham transaction in itself. I don't intend to delve into this, there are dozens of Supreme Court decisions on this.

    The court determines two factors in deciding whether the transaction is a "sham":

    (1) is there is a bona fide transaction of economic substance, based on or compelled by business or regulatory reason, considered together with tax-independent considerations;
    (2) is the transaction itself shaped primarily by tax avoidance features.

    See, for example, ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1998) and again many others.

    This is actually quite a steep hill to climb in large multi-national investment vehicles or IP owners.
    3. Michael O Flynn and others are taking a case against The Irish State to Europe with regard to illegal state aid given by the Irish State to these vulture funds.
    Cool story bro... but unless there is some other case, I believe the case to which you're referring has nothing to do with vulture funds but is actually do to with NAMA themselves commissioning the construction of housing, which O'Flynn and others claim causes a competitive disadvantage due to the lower cost of borrowing for the State-owned agency; thus resulting in lower prices for NAMA built homes and a competitive disadvantage for private builders.

    I await your vulture fund case.
    4. You need to read up on the law, Ireland has moved away from the common law tradition years ago ( although you may not have ).
    That's simply not true - I highly doubt that's taught in Irish law schools these days...
    Believe it or not, this Country signed up to the Lisbon and Maastricht treaties, this allows European law to supercede contact and even Irish constitutional law, tell that to your friends in the bank.
    No, actually it doesn't. We have made Constitutional amendments to accede to those Treaties in order to allow the contents to be Constitutional. However, Directives are still implemented by National legislation in line with Constitutional requirements.

    I suggest you (re-)read Van Gend en Loos as well to brush up on horizontal and vertical direct effect.


    I truly hope you are not a practising lawyer in Ireland or the United States.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,017 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Michael O' Flynn on the Sean O' Rourke show now


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    In relation to aggressive tax avoidance being illegal in the USA I draw readers attention to a landmark well known US court case in this regard,


    Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that where a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that, for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction where the economic substance varies from its legal form.
    In other words if the said tax structure is a sham structure set up solely to reduce federal taxes and has no legitimate business purpose, it is illegal.

    I believe Michael O'Flynn and others are fighting Nama and vulture funds. There are two separate legal actions taking place.

    With regard to European legislation and in particular the unfair terms directive, 93/13/EEC refers. This is currently very topical in Ireland, some believe various County Registrars in the Circuit Courts of Ireland are granting possession orders without the legal discretion to apply EU law, in particular the unfair term directive, as in, a national court is required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term falling within the scope of the directive is unfair, compensating in its own way for the imbalance which exists between the consumer or the seller or supplier.

    In fact this is so serious I believe that the Tanaiste Francis Fitzgerald is asking questions of her own department and that of Justice and Revenue in this regard. The State may very well be liable if a consumer lost their abode in the matter as set out above.

    In relation to readers of boards threads who are EU Law nerds, Freudian Slippers made reference to the Van Gend en Loos case which cautiously approached the subject of direct effect. Later in Defrenne v SABENA the ECJ decided their was two forms of direct effect, namely vertical direct effect and horizontal direct effect. In Foster v British Gas the ECJ demonstrated it's willingness to confer rights of a EU directive unto individuals. In Francovich v Italy the ECJ ruled that an action could be taken against a Government by an individual for the State's failure to implement a directive ( or it's incorrect implementation ) and the subsequent loss of rights suffered in court. If I was the Irish Government I would be worried, the EU has already penalised the Irish State for it's failure to correctly implement article 7(2) of the unfair terms directive, maybe the Irish State has not learnt from past mistakes. Think of all those consumers who may have been unlawfully dispossessed of their homes by Circuit Court registrars. It would only be natural for them to want their pound of flesh.

    The Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland explicitly provided for the supremacy of EU law within the Republic of Ireland by providing that no other provision of the Irish constitution could invalidate laws enacted which was necessitated by membership of the then European Communities. In Crotty v. An Taoiseach the Irish Supreme Court held that the ratification of the Single European Act by Ireland was not necessitated by membership of the European Communities and could therefore be subject to review by the courts.

    In relation to Freudian Slippers jibe about me being a practicing solicitor, all I can say is ditto, but the sad thing is, you probably are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    In relation to aggressive tax avoidance being illegal in the USA I draw readers attention to a landmark well known US court case in this regard,


    Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that where a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that, for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction where the economic substance varies from its legal form.
    In other words if the said tax structure is a sham structure set up solely to reduce federal taxes and has no legitimate business purpose, it is illegal.

    Aw, bless. You can copypasta from Wikipedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering

    lol.

    Either way, you're still confused between tax avoidance and tax evasion.
    I suggest you look at the two points I raised above in relation to sham transactions - you'll see that (and this is actually quite hilarious from someone who claims common law is dead) that it is a more modern case which builds on the basis of this near-century-old case.

    This is no evidence that tax avoidance is illegal; this case and subsequent cases I quoted above are the basis for which a Court can determine a transaction a sham and therefore evasion (illegal) as opposed to avoidance (legal)

    I believe Michael O'Flynn and others are fighting Nama and vulture funds. There are two separate legal actions taking place.
    Source?
    With regard to European legislation and in particular the unfair terms directive, 93/13/EEC refers. This is currently very topical in Ireland, some believe various County Registrars in the Circuit Courts of Ireland are granting possession orders without the legal discretion to apply EU law, in particular the unfair term directive, as in, a national court is required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term falling within the scope of the directive is unfair, compensating in its own way for the imbalance which exists between the consumer or the seller or supplier.
    I'm not sure how that makes your point in any coherent way?
    In fact this is so serious I believe that the Taoiseach Francis Fitzgerald
    Did Enda get the boot while I've been gone?
    is asking questions of her own department and that of Justice and Revenue in this regard. The State may very well be liable if a consumer lost their abode in the matter as set out above.
    Again, this doesn't provide a shred of support for the claim you initially made.
    In relation to readers of boards threads who are EU Law nerds, Freudian Slippers made reference to the Van Gend en Loos case which cautiously approached the subject of direct effect. Later in Defrenne v SABENA the ECJ decided their was two forms of direct effect, namely vertical direct effect and horizontal direct effect. In Foster v British Gas the ECJ demonstrated it's willingness to confer rights of a EU directive unto individuals. In Francovich v Italy the ECJ ruled that an action could be taken against a Government by an individual for the State's failure to implement a directive ( or it's incorrect implementation ) and the subsequent loss of rights suffered in court. If I was the Irish Government I would be worried, the EU has already penalised the Irish State for it's failure to correctly implement article 7(2) of the unfair terms directive, maybe the Irish State has not learnt from past mistakes. Think of all those consumers who may have been unlawfully dispossessed of their homes by Circuit Court registrars. It would only be natural for them to want their pound of flesh.
    Again, other than copypasta, this doesn't provide any coherent support for arguments you are making.

    It shows you probably have just enough EU law knowledge to be dangerous to yourself and others, but not enough to actually reach a conclusion.
    The Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland explicitly provided for the supremacy of EU law within the Republic of Ireland by providing that no other provision of the Irish constitution could invalidate laws enacted which was necessitated by membership of the then European Communities. In Crotty v. An Taoiseach the Irish Supreme Court held that the ratification of the Single European Act by Ireland was not necessitated by membership of the European Communities and could therefore be subject to review by the courts.
    Again, whilst semi-factual information, it's just a dump... there is nothing here that in any way resembles a point...
    In relation to Freudian Slippers jibe about me being a practicing solicitor, all I can say is ditto, but the sad thing is, you probably are.
    Well, it's "practising" first of all; I didn't say anything about being a solicitor and I do practise law in both jurisdictions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 M_D_88


    I think we are moving off the tread title, back to the very first question, In December 14 Ulster bank claimed to assign their Loan to Promontoria Aran Ltd, but it transpires it auctually was assigned to Promontoria 128b.v. Is this false information on Ulster banks part. How legal are the transfers, as there isn't even a mention of Prom 128 on a land registry Folio.


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    Totally agree, I have viewed the letters in question and it does seem that Ulster Bank are quilty of misrepresentation to say the least, one has to ask the question why?. Time will tell if the transfers are legal or that those who signed same are duly authorised. Like to see the PRA form 56 used to transfer the charge !


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    To posters, regarding my recent argument with Freudian Slippers, particularly with regard to EU law trumping all other law, here is another cut and paste from a recent High Court case AIB Plc v. Peter and Mary Counihan, delivered by Justice Max Barret that will put this argument to bed once and for all (para 14 refers )


    14. Fifth, of some concern when it comes to the application of Aziz is how the task identified by the Court of Justice falls to be discharged in a common law system grounded upon, inter alia, the rules of precedent. If, for example, the court at summary hearing reviews particular terms and conditions and identifies clauses A, B, and C as potentially unfair, is a later court of equal or lesser jurisdiction precluded from finding that clauses X, Y and Z in the same terms and conditions present a difficulty in this regard? It seems to this Court that they could reasonably be contended not to be so bound because (a) each case will be decided to a great extent on its own facts, and/or (b) ultimately even the demands of precedent must yield to the supremacy of European Union law, where applicable, and/or (c) because of the precedential weight to be ascribed a judgment following summary hearing, as opposed to a judgment given after full plenary hearing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    To posters, regarding my recent argument with Freudian Slippers, particularly with regard to EU law triumphing all other law, here is another cut and paste from a recent High Court case AIB Plc v. Peter and Mary Counihan, delivered by Justice Max Barret that will put this argument to bed once and for all (para 14 refers )


    14. Fifth, of some concern when it comes to the application of Aziz is how the task identified by the Court of Justice falls to be discharged in a common law system grounded upon, inter alia, the rules of precedent. If, for example, the court at summary hearing reviews particular terms and conditions and identifies clauses A, B, and C as potentially unfair, is a later court of equal or lesser jurisdiction precluded from finding that clauses X, Y and Z in the same terms and conditions present a difficulty in this regard? It seems to this Court that they could reasonably be contended not to be so bound because (a) each case will be decided to a great extent on its own facts, and/or (b) ultimately even the demands of precedent must yield to the supremacy of European Union law, where applicable, and/or (c) because of the precedential weight to be ascribed a judgment following summary hearing, as opposed to a judgment given after full plenary hearing.
    I think I understand why you're a little confused:

    There is a difference between what you seem to be describing (and it's certainly not in any way a basis to claim "common law is dead") and what the reality of primacy of EU law means on a practical basis.

    The EU has a bunch of Treaties which outline the basic tenants of EU law - they're not entirely prescriptive, but more of the foundation of EU law. These are essentially the EU Constitution (which is why people wanted to replace the multiple Treaties with one single European Constitution). It is correct that Member States cannot enact legislation which is contrary to these Treaties; so in that manner, to use your rather odd phrasing, EU law "triumph" over Member State laws.

    Because Treaties by their very nature cannot be entirely prescriptive, the EU (as with the Member States themselves) relies on secondary legislation to kind of fill in the blanks. Regulations, Directives and Decisions are the ways by which this is done. Regulations have direct effect, so I'd also agree that they "triumph" over MS law. Directives do not have direct effect (well... we now know that's only kind of true, but that's perhaps a digression) and must be implemented into national legislation in line with the constitution.


    So in short, what you're doing is a key tactic of the pseudo-legal world, whereby you take something and misrepresent it as being applicable in non-analogous situations. It's akin to a modern charlatan IMO.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Totally agree, I have viewed the letters in question and it does seem that Ulster Bank are quilty of misrepresentation to say the least, one has to ask the question why?
    How so? That's a serious accusation.
    Time will tell if the transfers are legal
    How do you claim that the transfers are not legal?
    or that those who signed same are duly authorised.
    What do you mean; from whom is authority granted?
    Like to see the PRA form 56 used to transfer the charge !
    I'm not hugely versed on the specifics on conveyancing, but if the deed was novated, why would a new form 56 be required on the mortgage given it's not technically a transfer?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭Forbearance


    Sarenco, ultimately even the demands of precedent must yield to the supremacy of European Law.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement