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

Article on the Hub real or bogus?

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    I wouldn't get too excited. It appears to be a procedural thing for getting the case into the circuit court. There'll be some working out by the solicitors and barristers and they'll be on their way again.


  • Options
    #3
    groovyg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    I don't really understand it, according to their FB page they seem to think "possession" cases currently in the circuit court have to now be heard in the high court. That can't be right.


  • Options
    #4
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    So it seems it's because they say
    The Circuit Court rules are clear that only matters involving less than €75,000 can be heard in the Circuit Court.
    ...and since the houses that banks want to reprocess are often worth more than €75k, that they shouldn't be able apply for their repossession through the Circuit Court.


  • Options
    #5
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    It's probably not good news for home owners as it means increased costs going through the high court.

    It's like good news that you won't be shot by firing squad but instead get to squirm a little longer on the end of the hangmans rope.


  • Options
    #6
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭whippet


    from the judges ruling

    'In doing so, the court observes the defendant' success on this aspect of the case is a pyrrhic victory. In circumstances where there is no dispute that the defendants borrowed the money and no dispute that they ceased making the agreed repayments in August 2011. this judgement merely postpones the day of reckoning while their debts keeps mounting. So be it."

    google Pyrrhic Victory !!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    whippet wrote: »
    from the judges ruling

    'In doing so, the court observes the defendant' success on this aspect of the case is a pyrrhic victory. In circumstances where there is no dispute that the defendants borrowed the money and no dispute that they ceased making the agreed repayments in August 2011. this judgement merely postpones the day of reckoning while their debts keeps mounting. So be it."

    google Pyrrhic Victory !!!

    Everything these people are doing is just extending the inevitable. They don't really think they can live in the house without paying for it forever, unless they're truly deluded.


  • Options
    #8
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭whippet


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    unless they're truly deluded.

    they are truly deluded .. except for a couple of the ringleaders who I think know exactly what they are at .. using others as cannon fodder to test out all manners of spurious legal argument hoping that one will stick and be their get out of jail free card from the millions they personally owe.


Advertisement