Error In Redemption Statement Does Not Prevent Reliance On Cross Security

In AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Toole & anor [2016] IEHC 368 the High Court determined that a bank was not prevented from relying on a mortgage as security for all sums due by the defendants, despite issuing a redemption statement which omitted this fact.

In order to understand this case, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events:

1. The plaintiff (the "Bank") had advanced certain loans to the defendants, which were performing loans at all material times (collectively referred to by the court as the "first loan").
2. The Bank had also advanced a loan (the "second loan") to the defendants and a third party, which was a non-performing loan.
3. Following unsuccessful negotiations the Bank demanded repayment in full of the second loan.