News and Insights

Print this page

Search News & Insights

Litigation After a Loan Sale – The Substitution of Plaintiffs Following a Loan Portfolio Acquisition

AUTHOR(S): Julie Murphy-O’Connor
PRACTICE AREA GROUP: Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution
DATE: 15.08.2016

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Stapleford Finance Limited v Lavelle(1) has confirmed that, where the underlying loan has been acquired, the substitution of the purchaser as plaintiff in existing proceedings relating to the loan is permissible. This will be of comfort to the purchasers of loan portfolios from financial institutions, a practice that has increased significantly in the Irish Banking sector in recent times.


Matheson acted for Stapleford Finance Limited (“Stapleford”) who purchased loans from Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (In Special Liquidation) (“IBRC”), including those of the Defendant, Mr Lavelle. Stapleford wished to be substituted in as sole plaintiff in place of IBRC in proceedings IBRC had issued against the defendant prior to the loan sale.

In the High Court, Baker J held that the Rules of the Superior Courts (the “Rules”) allowed the substitution of Stapleford for IBRC. The decision was appealed by the defendant to the Court of Appeal.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the Rules should be given a narrow interpretation and that substitution should be confined to circumstances where the “event” involved extraneous circumstances, such as death or bankruptcy, and not merely the commercial transfer of a debt. The defendant claimed that if a purchaser of a loan wishes to assume the position of plaintiff, it must bring new proceedings.


Costello J, delivering the Court of Appeal judgment, held that the defendant had provided no justification for interpreting the Rules so narrowly and that the transfer of a loan book was enough to qualify as an “event” for the purposes of the Rules (Order 17, Rule 4 of the Rules requires the occurrence of an “event” which gives rise to a “change or transmission of interest or liability”). If substitution was not permitted it would defeat the legislative intent of certain enactments and lead to injustice. Furthermore, Costello J noted that having to bring fresh proceedings would lead to many claims being potentially statute-barred, which would be unjust and undesirable. Finally, the Court of Appeal also noted that the Rules were intended to be facilitative and the defendant’s interpretation would lead to a waste of time, effort and expense.

This is an important judgment which confirms that purchasers and sellers of loans can exchange places in litigation which travels with a loan sale.


1. [2016] IECA 104


About cookies on our website

Following a revised EU directive on website cookies, each company based, or doing business, in the EU is required to notify users about the cookies used on their website.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site and to allow the use of specific functionality like social media page sharing. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended.

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)