Tom Roche - Just Forests

The fallout in Ireland as the credit servicers move in on the homes of Irish citizens, having not proven the debts & often attempting to prove legal standing using redacted documentation. Curious how this can continue unabated without consideration of the recent O’Reilly case?

It appears that barristers have been asserting unproven ownership of registered charges in Irish courts - e.g., via oral submission or redacted affidavits omitting valid assignment chains - thereby misleading the court on a jurisdictional fact. Per Start Mortgages v McGowan and v Ramseyer, standing requires exhibited, unredacted proofs. Counsels’ bare statement fails prima facie test, making orders void ab initio for want of jurisdiction, not mere error. Barristers are running risk of professional complaints for misleading judges in absence of appropriate exhibits. Since judges are not granted immunity to flawed orders, they clearly must prioritise evidenced merits over any oral submissions. The practice by judges of naming the appearing barristers in court orders is useful when later an issue arises on a jurisdictional fact. The Bar Council and Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) rely on order recitals to identify counsel in misconduct probes - e.g., misrepresentation of standing via bare assertions. Naming enables targeted investigations under Bar Council Conduct Rules (r.5: misleading court) without inferring judicial criticism