Ireland: Loan Sales: High Court Personal Insolvency Decision Differentiates Between Types Of Secured Creditor

Last Updated: 14 November 2017
Article by Cormac Kissane, Orla O'Connor, Robert Cain, John Donald, Simon Hannigan and Maedhbh Clancy
Most Read Contributor in Ireland, March 2019

Following a High Court decision of 1 November 2017 , it seems that the High Court will assess an objection by a secured creditor to a personal insolvency arrangement (PIA) differently depending on whether the creditor is a bank (or other originating lender) or a loan purchaser that is not a bank.

In the former case, the High Court will look at the future capital costs to the creditor resulting from a proposed PIA. In the latter case, the High Court will view the creditor's position as more akin to that of an investor in a bond.


Shoreline Residential DAC purchased the debtors' loans from IBRC which were secured on their principal private residence (PPR). Shoreline is not a regulated entity, but had appointed Pepper Asset Servicing (a regulated credit servicer) to service the loans. When the debtors (a husband and wife) encountered financial difficulties, they developed a proposal for interlocking PIAs with a personal insolvency practitioner (PIP). Shoreline was the largest secured creditor, owed just over €323,000 with a remaining mortgage term of 18 years and 2 months. The PPR was worth approximately €190,000. Mrs Hayes was in full-time employment, with Mr Hayes in part-time employment and in receipt of social welfare payments.


Under the proposed PIA:

  • the amount owing to Shoreline would be written down to €190,000 (the value of the PPR);
  • the remaining mortgage term would be extended from 18 years and 2 months to 27 years; and
  • the interest rate would be fixed for the 27 year term at 3.65%.


Shoreline objected to the proposed PIA, and that objection was upheld by the Circuit Court in February 2017.

That decision was then appealed to the High Court. In the High Court, Shoreline's outlined its principal objections to the PIA as being that:

  • the fixing of an interest rate for 27 years was "unheard of in banking practice";
  • the PIA was unsustainable; and
  • the PIA was unfairly prejudicial to it.

On 1 November 2017, the High Court overturned Shoreline's rejection of the PIA and allowed the PIA to proceed. Baker J's comments regarding the proposal to fix the interest rate for 27 years are particularly noteworthy, notably the distinction she drew between a creditor that is a commercial bank/originating lender, and a creditor that is a loan buyer structured as a fund (or similar).


As mentioned above, Shoreline argued that to fix an interest rate at 3.65% for an extended mortgage term of 27 years was "unheard of in banking practice" and was unfairly prejudicial to it. It also argued that "no lender on the open market is offering a fixed rate term even close to the term proposed" and that it would be impossible for it to borrow an equivalent sum at a 3.65% fixed rate for an equivalent term as it is becoming increasingly difficult to foresee what prevailing interest rates will be.

Baker J started from the position that Shoreline was a fund and not a bank, the terms on which it had purchased (and financed the purchase of) the mortgage debt were not presented to the Court, and it was not clear when Shoreline might need to return to the market to finance its capital needs (in particular as the PIA involved a restructuring of the debt, and not a refinance of the debt).

Baker J noted that:

  • the Personal Insolvency Acts allow for interest rates to be fixed, variable, or linked to a reference rate, and do not impose a time limit for this;
  • the fairness of the rate need not always be tested against the projected borrowing needs of a mortgage lender, but instead against "the actual circumstances of the objecting creditor". She viewed the debtors' loan as an asset of Shoreline, secured on the PPR, offering a long-term return, and commented that it might more accurately be compared to a bond, with Shoreline instead required to demonstrate unfair prejudice by reference to an investment or bond market, and not by reference to interest rates. While an interest rate set by a mortgage lender tends to reflect the lender's ability to borrow, Baker J commented that in the case of Shoreline, the fairness or otherwise of the rate should be tested against the future costs of, or value to, an investor and not a lender.

Expressly taking account of the fact that the mortgage loan was owned by "an investment vehicle and not a commercial bank", Baker J did not see sufficient evidence that the 27 year fixed rate caused unfair prejudice to Shoreline.


Regarding a broader argument by Shoreline of unfair prejudice, Baker J noted that any debt write-down is prejudicial to a creditor, with the key assessment being whether the prejudice is actually unfair. Emphasising that this should not be a purely mathematical assessment, and that the statutory objective (per the Personal Insolvency Acts) of keeping debtors in their PPRs should be considered, Baker J commented that:

  • even if the return to the creditor on a bankruptcy would be marginally better (that was not the case in this particular scenario), that does not necessarily mean that the PIA is unfairly prejudicial to the creditor; and
  • notably, the test of unfairness in this case should be by reference to investment returns and not the cost of capital, as Shoreline was not a lender.

In examining the question of fairness by reference not only to the financial profile of the debtors, but also that of Shoreline, Baker J held that the proposed PIA was not unfairly prejudicial to Shoreline.


Shoreline argued that:

  • the debtors would not be able to service capital and interest payments under the PIA once its 6 year term had expired (the PIA proposal involved interest-only payments for that 6 year period);
  • the PIA was unsustainable as it would require mortgage payments to be made until Mr Hayes was 79 years old and Mrs Hayes 68 years old; and
  • as Mr Hayes was likely to retire around year 18, he would then be in receipt of a pension only, leaving him with a monthly shortfall. While the debtors argued that they could choose to live below the Insolvency Service of Ireland's Guidelines on a reasonable standard of living and reasonable living expenses, Shoreline argued that the Court could not approve a PIA that allowed this to happen.

In approving the PIA and finding in favour of the debtors, Baker J held that:

  • a proposed PIA must be shown to be "reasonably sustainable during its currency" i.e. during its 6 year term. The Personal Insolvency Acts do not require the Court to assess the debtors' likely circumstances once that 6 year term has expired (but it cannot disregard the circumstance that are likely to exist at the end of that term if presented with evidence on that point);
  • the terms of the proposed PIA showed that the debtors' current income could sustain the payments needed under the proposal;
  • while the debtors may have to live below the current guideline figures from year 18 onwards, she could not safely assess the sustainability of the repayments from year 18 onwards against 2017 salary figures and social welfare entitlements, as any scenario would be overly based on conjecture; and
  • should the debtors decide to live below the applicable guideline figures from year 18 onwards, they are entitled to do so.


This decision reflects the tendency of the Irish courts to encourage arrangements which enable debtors to remain in their family homes, and to encourage secured creditors to approve PIA proposals. In the context of loan portfolio sales, the distinction drawn between creditors that are banks, and loan purchasers that are not, is troubling. It remains to be seen whether, in future cases, this distinction is limited to matters such as funding costs and interest rates, or whether it is applied more widely, and the impact that would have on the value of banks' NPL books.


A debtor's ability to appeal to Court to have a secured creditor's veto of a PIA proposal overturned received considerable coverage when it was introduced with effect from 20 November 2015. For further information, read our August 2015 briefing here.

Earlier cases dealing with the secured creditor's veto have been covered in our previous briefings (Resolving the Mortgage Arrears Crisis Vol 1/2016, Resolving the Mortgage Arrears Crisis Vol 1/2017 and Resolving the Mortgage Arrears Crisis Vol 2/2017).

However, in addition to the Shoreline case, the other recent case which attracted a considerable amount of coverage was the High Court decision handed down on 5 October 2017 by Baker J in Reilly & Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 [2017] IEHC 558. In her decision, Baker J confirmed that only a PIP can appeal a secured creditor's rejection of a PIA to the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court rejects that appeal, only a PIP can appeal that decision to the High Court. That decision reportedly presented issues for PIPs who are concerned about the risk that they may not be able to recover their costs in taking these cases on behalf of clients.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions