Donate to The Hub – Ireland

All donations,
will help us help you.
Thank you.
Get the Hub Ireland App FREE

 Download The Hub Ireland App

Free for Android and IOS

Statement of Claim

Your Statement of Claim, explained:
See the High Court

If a High Court case has been commenced by a Plenary Summons and the Defendant has entered an appearance, then the next step is for the Plaintiff to serve a “Statement of Claim” on the Defendant. The Plaintiff has 21 days to deliver the Statement of Claim after the Defendant has entered an appearance. It is not necessary to serve the Statement of Claim personally on the Defendant – it may simply be sent by ordinary post.

The purpose of the Statement of Claim is to show the Defendant the case that is being made against him/her, which he or she has to meet at the trial of the action.

The Statement of Claim must contain the following information:

The title and record number. The Plaintiff’s name and the Defendant’s name make up the title of the proceedings.

A description of the parties. The Statement of Claim must state the surname, first name, the residence or place of business and the occupation of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The Statement of Claim must state the nature, extent and grounds of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant. It should clearly set out the allegations that are being made by the Plaintiff and the damage that the Plaintiff suffered. It should also state what the Plaintiff is seeking from the court.

The Statement of Claim must be dated and signed by the Plaintiff or his/her solicitor.

So what happens next, the Defence has to deliver their ‘defence’ Delivering the Defence

Getting to know the court system: Circuit & High Courts

The District Court: The District Court

A Statement of Claim is a factual document, it is not your life story on how the Banks have ruined your life, there must be points of law contained within your SoC.

What point of law are you bringing to the Court Room?

What is a Statement of Claim? Follow this Link to the Courts.ie.

What does a Statement of Claim look like and what are you trying to say and show:

Here is a fictitious S o C

enjoy: you can’t copy and paste, it is just to give you an idea of what you are looking to put into your claim.

 

THE HIGH COURT

STATEMENT OF CLAIM OF XXXXXX

RECORD NO. 2012 xxxxx

Between

Xxxxx xxxxx Plaintiff 1

Xxxxx xxxx Plaintiff 2

and

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I, xxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Co Kildare, being eighteen years and upwards MAKE OATH and say as follows:

TAKE NOTICE that at the hearing of the above-named proceedings the above Plaintiffs claim against you will be as follows—

The Plaintiffs will prove that reckless lending, negligence in not following normal lending guidelines, misrepresentation of the fact laid before them and did enter into a none sustainable Mortgage, the plaintiffs will likewise show that the Defendants have been paid in full for the said Mortgage. The Plaintiffs will further show that the Defendants reckless practices and the securitisation of this Mortgage has removed them from any part of this contract.

1. I say as a result of the defendant, trading as “xxxxxxxx Home Loans Ltd” reckless lending policies, procedures and pure greed has impacted my life, health and wellbeing. My Wife and I are suffering great stress and personal loss through financial and marital stress due to the reckless lending and prejudiced practices as laid out here:

A). The declaration of Affordability as signed by xxxxxxxxx : Plaintiff 1’s bank statements clearly show that the account is constantly in the ‘red’ and I would judge that this mortgage would never have been sustained.

B). The Month on month Bank Statement of Plaintiff 1 shows an average of minus €2034.64 in his private account.

C). Plaintiff 1’s Business account was minus €7043.02 at time of applying for the re-mortgage.

D). Plaintiff 1’s private credit card was in a minus of €5066.82.

E). Plaintiff 1’s Business Credit Card (MBNA) was in fact over €12 thousand Euros in debt. The Defendant added a ‘special condition’ to the draw down of the cheque “On Mortgage agreement: Solicitor settle the Plaintiff 1’s Credit Card bill of €12,000.00 as part of the conditions of draw down. Again showing their reckless lending policies and breaches The Consumer Credit Act 1995, Restriction to use’ Section 138 (2) –1.

F). The gross income for of Plaintiff 1 was shown at €75,000.00 but not verified by any accounts and not verified by the Defendants, whilst the Defendants ‘tick box’ shows they have a set of accounts, at that time the Plaintiff only had 1 years accounts. The defendant has a care of duty to acquire 3 years worth of account: this procedure was never adhered to.

G). The Declaration of Affordability does not include a signed declaration for Plaintiff 2. The Plaintiff 2 never received an affordability form to sign. Sworn Affidavit to back up this claim, Plus the files received from Defendant states same.

H). Plaintiff 2’s Bank Statements, also showing that the account is seriously in the ‘‘red’’. Month on month Bank Statement, Minus €1260.23.

I). Plaintiff 2 can show and was available to xxxxx xxxxxxx a bank loan in the region of €20000.00, again showing the blatant disregard for any code of conduct, the Defendants complete reckless lending policies, procedures and pure greed.

J). Plaintiff 2’s Credit card account, is in a minus €4390.90, again showing the blatant disregard for any code of conduct, reckless lending policies, procedures and pure greed. The Plaintiffs further claim that the Defendant is accountable for giving mortgages without proper risk assessments being carried out and ignoring the regulations.

K). The Plaintiff will also point out that the Defendant did not even perform a basic level of Risk Assessment: the Defendant did not make any enquiries to the ‘Irish Credit Bureau’.

L). The Plaintiffs are here to prove that the Defendant blatantly and intentionally allowed the Plaintiffs to re-mortgage the property knowing the mortgage would be unsustainable and continued to do so disregarding any credit risk to the defendant, insomuch as the defendant would 1) make money from the Securitisation of the note, 2) the mortgage debt would be paid off by internal or external insurance policy and 3) the mortgage book would eventually be ‘sold off’.

The Defendants knew their representation regarding their willingness to enter into a loan agreement with the Plaintiffs was based on the loan being ‘toxic’ from the start and prayed on the innocence of the Plaintiffs and the utter nature of the Plaintiff necessity to re-mortgage. The Defendants have made loans on fraudulent based credit checks, on an industrial scale in order to permit them to continue their scheme to obtaining properties wrongfully and in violation of any consumer credit act. The Defendants at all times possessed superior knowledge to that of the Plaintiff that the loan was tainted from the start and had little chance of being Lexicon to the home ownership. The fact that the Defendants were motivated to see that the Plaintiffs entered into a toxic loan and ended up in default so Defendants could collect their CDS [CDS being a form of insurance], then move to repossess the property and to further compound the action by adding ‘plus contents’ shows the motivations of the Defendants. The ‘plus contents’ seems to be a side bet for Pepper, only being added when Pepper took over the Mortgage file.

2. The Defendant, known as xxxxxxxx has shown a countless records of reckless lending policy, procedure and pure greed resulting in a 4 year life of hell for the Plaintiff 1 & 2. The plaintiffs original mortgage was with xxx xxx, taken out in 2003 for the sum of €322.000.00. The Plaintiffs contacted IIB to raise the mortgage to €350K. The xxx xxx received our application and current accounting situation, the Plaintiffs were refused the re-mortgage. Letter of refusal to be entered as evidence.

The Plaintiffs then contacted a Mortgage broker, after several weeks the Mortgage Broker returned to say that he could not secure a re-mortgage but could get the mortgage through only one Sub Prime Lender: Namely the defendant, known as xxxxxx xxxxx. The Plaintiffs will be willing to supply an Affidavit at the court date from xxxx xxxxx and / or xxxx xxxxx. At all times the Defendant had an affirmative duty to follow normal risk assessment and proper credit bureau checks thereby not expose themselves or the Plaintiff to erroneous loan. The Defendant show a blatant disregard for any normal banking practices and duty of care.

3. The Defendant Continues to show a blatant disregard for normal codes of practice in their haste to enter us into a deceitful and unsustainable contract: Special Condition 2. in our contract from the Defendant states: we must draw down the cheque within 3 months, the normal time scale for this action is 6 months.

4. The Plaintiff will also show through the Defendants own records that their reckless lending and unethical business dealings allowed them to make ‘repossessions’ to become an even greater part of the Defendants way of balancing their books, grossing some 4.5 million in repossessions in 2011.

5. The Plaintiff will further show the reckless nature of the Defendants lending policy through the Defendants own records, recorded pre-tax losses in its Irish business totaling €107.1m in 2011. Leading to and helping the ‘Boom & Bust’ situation here in Ireland and effectively contributing to ‘state’ of Irish economy, the Irish People and the plaintiffs financial situation.

6. The Plaintiff says that banks and mortgage providers require a license from the Central Bank of Ireland to operate as such in this Island of Ireland. It is stipulated that an applicant must be solvent to successfully be awarded said license. The Plaintiff says that it is a serious criminal offence to operate as a bank / mortgage provider without a valid license and being insolvent constitutes involuntary surrender of any license. The defendants should note that the ‘company’ must be deemed Solvent and not relying on Parent or Sister Companies.

7. The plaintiff will also show the reckless nature of the Defendants lending policy’s having to write off 84 Million in bad debts in 2011, leading the Plaintiff to believe firmly that the defendant had already Securitised these Mortgage Loans. The Defendant will enter into the records the affidavit of M. Wogugu, Central Public Accountant, MA, USA: showing Securitisation is illegal or at least morally wrong.

8. The Plaintiff will also show that the defendant sold it’s Mortgage File to xxxx xxxxx for a minimal fee thereby intimating the Securitisation or implicating the fact that the defendant had been paid-out by the defendants own Insurance Policy held on the Plaintiffs Mortgage.

9. The Plaintiff will show that whilst the Defendant is continuing the process of repossession, the Mortgage File is now owned by xxxxx xxxxx and intends to increase its income and value of the Mortgage by inserting ‘Plus Contents’ into the Summons. Without Disclosure and the Plaintiffs foreknowledge (the mortgage is both Securitised and settled by insurance) the Plaintiff claims this contract is seriously flawed, grossly negligent and a misrepresentation of the true nature of the mortgage orchestrated by the Defendant to deceive the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff draws your attention to the condition of offer 7(a) Variable Interest Rates in particular. The Plaintiff will prove that by adding this clause and showing the defendant charging 4.7400 (on average) above the EURIBOR made this mortgage inevitably ‘unsustainable’ by way of entrapment and also breaking the Regulation by statute Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

10. The Plaintiff will show the Defendants gross misconduct on guarding and defending the Defendants Assets: Effectively the mortgage was not insured for 7 months!

11. The Defendant continues to show a blatant disregard for normal codes of conduct in their haste to enter us into an erroneous and unsustainable contract: A). Life assurance: the draw-down date of the cheque was 16/07/2008. At this time the assignment of Life Cover was still not in place (letter dated 18/08/08) = Effectively the Defendants had no life cover assigned to the property, a point of law the Plaintiffs believe. B). The Defendant: xxxx xxxx required the Plaintiff take out new Life Assurance on Property, from xxx xxxx. This contravenes The Consumer Credit Act 1995, section 126 (1) C) xxxx xxxx would not give cover to Plaintiff 1. but would give cover to Plaintiff 2. The Defendant continually ignored normal codes of conduct and any form of due diligence, the Defendants had already furnished the Plaintiffs with the cheque: This contravenes The Consumer Credit Act 1995, section 124 (1), (2), (3) and (4), also section 126, (1), Also section 131 (ii) Mortgage Protection Insurance. D) The Defendant requested Assignment of Life Assurance from xxxx xxx on both xxxxx & xxxxx, also requesting Assignment on xxxxxx from xxxxx xxxxx, effectively running two insurance’s on the one property. Later to be amended to just xxxxxxx on xxxx xxxx Assurance Policy, again showing a complete miss representation of any rules or obligation they should have to the Plaintiffs. A complete lack of competence and an eagerness to bypass any form of normal practice to entrap the Plaintiffs in an obvious unsustainable mortgage agreement.

12. The Plaintiff intends to show that the Defendant, their agent or employee falsified the Notice of Assignment of Life Cover:

1) xxxx xxxx letter dated 21st August 2008, unable to assign policy to xxxx xxxx, we had already received cheque (16th July 2008), however copy of ‘Notice of assignment’ states different (note:- ‘Notice’ are not on headed paper or signed).

2) The defendant, according to the Defendants ‘chat file’ are still looking for life assurance to be re-assigned as late as January 2009 (cheque drawn down 16th July 2008). Effectively the mortgage was not insured for 7 months! Again showing a total disregard for any business ethics or normal business practise or self-protection. Just a haste to secure an erroneous unsustainable loan agreement. This contravenes The Consumer Credit Act 1995, section 124 (1), (2), (3) and (4), also section 126, (1), Also section 131 (ii) Mortgage Protection Insurance.

3) xxxx xxxx has confirmed assignment of insurance was the 9th October 2008.

13. The Plaintiffs intend to show, via a sworn affidavit that the defendants removed certain documents, from the plaintiffs ‘file’, held by the Defendants which, shows the Defendants intention to foreclose, rather than accept an agreement. The Plaintiff would be calling to court MS xxxx xxxx of xxxx xxxx Mortgage services as a witness.

CCMA & The Consumer Protection on Mortgage Arrears:

14. The Plaintiffs intend to show that the defendants continued their lies and deceit by manually inserting paperwork that: the Plaintiff will produce letters regarding the situation of the mortgage account with a few inconsistencies in it: giving ‘future’ dates and wrong amounts, The Plaintiff would therefore assume that this letter were inserted after the event and to complete our/their file and falsely show that the Defendant had followed the correct CCMA & the Consumer Protection code regarding mortgages.

Harassment:

15. The Plaintiff will show that the defendant did show complete disregard for any of the guild line laid down by the CCMA or the Consumer Protection code regarding our mortgages and entered into a tactic of complete and relentless barrage of harassment. Of which, the Garda Siochana are now looking into investigating under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, Harassment & Demands for payment of debt causing alarm. The Plaintiff will show via the defendants own ‘Chat File’ that the defendants made 243 phone calls to the Plaintiff in just 21 month, sent 33 letters of demand, in one fashion or another and by the defendants own ‘Chat File’ proving harassment, “Ms xxxx xxxx stated “starting letter strategy again”. On another occasion stating on the 17th July entry: “Start of early morning strategy”. The Plaintiff will quote the Central Bank of Ireland’s code of conduct Mortgage Arrears 2011 and A Consumer Guide to Dealing with your Lender 2011

16. The Plaintiff intends to show that the Defendant entered into a campaign of compete harassment and will show via the Defendants own ‘Chat File’ that these accusations are correct and fitting. 2 examples being: Christmas Eve 2008. 5 attempted calls, one connected at 15-03, “this call is just to remind you that your house is at risk if you do not keep up the repayments on your mortgage”. The Defendants also reminded the Plaintiff “Reminded of Legal Demand against the plaintiff”.

Christmas Eve 2009, Called House & Mobiles, 13.24 pm.

17. The Plaintiff will show that the defendants continued the harassment by making phone calls as late as 8.45 PM even after receiving instruction to dissist late night phone calls. And that the Defendant use ‘the company’ mobile to contact the Plaintiff, withholding the number.

18. The plaintiff will show that the defendant continue their harassment by making phone calls to the plaintiff 2 work number, the Defendants were in full knowledge that Plaintiff 2 is a retail sales manager and is not allowed to receive personal calls whilst at work.

19. The Plaintiff will show that the Defendants mislead the Court. ‘Inter Alia’, engaging in the practise of almost ‘Robo Signing’: whereby the Defendants used people who had no personal knowledge to sign affidavits that indicated they had personal knowledge of those matters contained in the affidavits.

20. The Plaintiff intends to show that the defendant continually added false information into the Defendants Affidavit to the Masters Court, just one example being, As contained in Affidavit of Mr xxxx xxxx : The payments for the year 2010 are 13 payments totaling €5800.00. The average is €5800. Divided by 13, makes the average payment of €527.27 and not €360.00 as quoted by the Defendants affidavit.

21. The Plaintiff will show that the company known as xxxxx xxxx sold the Mortgage file, via a special purpose Vehicle to xxxxx xxxxx, ‘XXXXXX’, The Defendant questions the legality of this third party to collect, after all they XXXXXX are simply a debt collection agency which, The Plaintiff will show that they have no agreed or consented to do business with XXXXX.

22. . The Plaintiff will show that the company known as XXXXXXX sold the Mortgage file, via a special purpose Vehicle and are no longer in receipt of the Original Mortgage ‘Note’, know to us the Letter of Offer.

23. The Plaintiff intends to show at least another 3 situations where Defendants mislead by false accounting and statements, again showing either gross negligence or an alternative motive.

Reckless lending & serious miss-judgements:

24. The plaintiffs will show that the Defendants are Guilty of Reckless Lending Practices and Negligence and but for this action & Knowledge the Plaintiffs would have or could have made different decisions about their Financial Affairs. The defendants will show that the Health, Welfare and Relationship has been Seriously Affect by the Defendants Gross Negligence in Reckless Lending, Misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the securitisation of the Mortgage, the Sale of its Mortgage file for a further profit even when the Mortgage had been settle by an insurance policy. The Defendant in 2011 had some €466 Million in loans on its books, it sold the Mortgage File in 2013 to xxxx xxxx for just €149 Million. In a post-balance sheet event, the accounts disclose that the firm’s loans, with a carrying value of €424.6m ETC. This, the Plaintiffs claim is a clear indication of the Defendant being paid in full by insurance cover or securitisation of the mortgage.

25. The Plaintiff begs to point out that it is a serious criminal offence to operate as a Bank / Mortgage Provider in the Island of Ireland (Eire) without a valid License, It is stipulated that an applicant must be solvent to successfully be awarded said license. By the defendants own admission in their annual returns points out that they were recording losses year on year. Only recording a post – balance sheet showing a value of €462 Million, The Plaintiffs claims further evidence of Securitisation or worse an Insurance Settlement. The defendants should note that the ‘company’ must be deemed Solvent and not relying on Parent or Sister Companies.

26. The Plaintiff beg to point out that the Defendant failed to take seriously the mounting evidence from the United States during 2006 and 2007 that lending to people who could not afford the repayments was proving a disaster. However, the Defendant, continued to fill its loan books with reckless determination and not drawing from historical events and even current facts from the US Banking Sector.

27. The Plaintiff believes that the Defendant is accountable for supplying mortgages without proper risk assessment, ignoring the regulations in relation to risk and liquidity laws, supply an erroneous mortgage and a contract that was contravenes the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

28. The Plaintiff intends to show that there is no ‘Contract’ in place, signed by both parties and thereby binding both parties, in Irish Law: no signed contract, no contract. Another observation that the Defendants are Guilty of Reckless Lending Practices and Negligence.

Securitisation, Insurance and Promissory Notes:

29. The Plaintiff claims that because the Defendant, 1). was paid out by insurance cover on the Plaintiffs mortgage and 2). the Defendant then sold the loan and recorded a profit from both insurance settlement and subsequent sale of the Mortgage File, (having sold the mortgage file for meagre 18.5% of its gross worth, it is either proof of settlement or Gross mis management).

The plaintiff will show the details in the Defendants Financial Statements that they cannot suffer any losses because they cannot suffer any loss over a debt already paid.

30. The Plaintiff will quote the CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND ASSET SECURITISATION, (i) The transfer does not contravene the terms and conditions of the underlying loan agreement and all the necessary consents have been obtained, The Plaintiffs never gave any consent for the securitisation of the loan / mortgage, neither did the Defendants seek consent, The Plaintiff quote Grey Courts White Paper N0 44:

“Banks approved the mortgages after (maybe) reviewing the applications, but the banks had no intention of holding onto the paper. Instead, they needed to build leverage into their balance sheets, which meant getting this paper off the balance sheet as quickly as possible.

The paper was sold into mortgage pools that were in turn sold to unsuspecting investors. Underwriting standards declined and eventually disappeared altogether. Did the banks care whether their shoddy practices resulted in lending money to people who couldn’t possibly pay it back? Did the banks care what was likely to happen to the ultimate investors in this paper? Not likely. In fact, commercial banks scrambled to acquire sub-prime lending banks so they could get ever more deeply into this seedy game”. The Plaintiff would like to view the original paper (also known as: note, promissory note, Bond, Tcorp Note, Commercial Paper) and would ask the court to instruct the Defendant to furnish the Plaintiff with said note for the purposes of going forward with this court case, in a fair and level playing field.The Defendant, Known as xxxxxx Home Loans Ltd , losses, Gross Negligence, Bad Lending Policies and Bad Management, proving Securitisation and Mortgage Settlement by the Defendants Insurance.

31. The Plaintive believes defendant broke Serious Liquidity Laws, has a record of reckless lending policy, procedure and exercises a policy of pure greed which has helped in the financial collapse of Ireland by 1) continuing to trade when in serious financial difficulties, 2) Over Securitising Notes. Examples are as follows:

A).The Defendant known as xxxxxx xxxxxx Loans Ltd, recorded pre-tax losses in its Irish business totaling €107.1m in 2011, the defendant sustained the loss after incurring exceptional costs of €92.9m through the writing off of bad and doubtful debts.

B). The loss in 2011 follows losses of €71.9m in 2010. The figures show that the firm had repossessed properties totaling €4.5m on its books in 2011.

C). The figures show that the firm had €466m in loans to customers at the start of 2011 prior to the bad debt provision. In the three years prior to 2011, xxxxx xxxxx wrote off €84m in bad debts.

D). The figures show that in 2011, the firm received €10.3m in interest income and paid out €12.6m in interest, resulting in a gross loss of €2.3m.

E). The firm also incurred the €92.9m bad debt provision and an additional €11.7m in administrative expenses.

The firm’s accumulated losses and shareholders’ deficit stood at €223.1m at the end of Dec 2011.

The Plaintiff begs to point out that it is a serious criminal offence to operate as a Bank / Mortgage Provider in the Island of Ireland (Eire) without a valid License, It is stipulated that an applicant must be solvent to successfully be awarded said license. The defendants should note that the ‘company’ must be deemed Solvent and not relying on Parent or Sister Companies. The Defendants intentionally misrepresented the general public and the Plaintiffs as to the status of their liquidity and quality of their loans.

32. The Plaintiff will show that xxxxx xxxxxx Home Loans Ltd broke the Mortgage Protection Insurance. The Plaintiffs can show that the Defendant broke section 124, (1), (2), (3), (4).

33. The Plaintiff will show that xxxx xxxx Home Loans Ltd broke the Mortgage Protection Insurance. The Plaintiffs can show that the Defendant broke section 126, (1).

34. The Plaintiff will show that xxxx xxxxx Home Loans Ltd broke the Mortgage Protection Insurance. The Plaintiffs can show that the Defendant broke section 131 (ii).

35. The Plaintiff will show that xxxxxx xxxxx Home Loans Ltd broke the Duty of the Mortgage Lender, section 130 (a). of the Credit Act.

36. The Plaintiff will show that xxxxx xxxxx Home Loans Ltd broke the arrangement fees, section 131 under the Credit Act 1995 and contains unfair Terms & Conditions as defined in the European Directive 93/13/EEC, 5th of April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and was imposed into Irish Law under S.I. No 27/1995 European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulation 1995.

37. The Plaintiff intends to show that the Defendants breached the disclosure of Interest Rates, breach of 134, sub-section (2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1995.

38. The Plaintiff intends to show the Defendant did not implement the restriction as to use of inertia’, Section 138, (2) of the consumer Credit Act 1995. Consumer Credit Act 1995, Third Schedule, form of notice to be included in the agreement. Part 1, important information.

39. The Plaintiff intends to prove that the Defendant did not disclose ‘important’ information pertaining to Securitisation and did not inform the Plaintiff, in the proper manner of any sale or sales of the Plaintiffs ‘Note’.

40. The Plaintiffs will show that the Contract between the Plaintiff & Defendant contains Unfair Terms & Conditions as defined in the European Directive 93/13/EEC, 5th of April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and was imposed into Irish Law under S.I. No 27/1995 European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulation 1995. Because the Plaintiff relied on the Defendants to guild them through the process of making and later servicing their home mortgage a special relationship existed between the Plaintiff & Defendant but was never exercised or adhered to by the Defendants. The existence of that special relationship imposed upon the Defendants a duty to fully and accurately disclose all pertinent information pertaining to the home loan.

41. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to perform on their part of the contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG; the Vienna Convention) articles 71 (1-a) & (2) & (3), article 72 (1).

42. The Plaintiff claims that any mortgage entered into without the mortgage company having the appropriate license and is therefore null and void.

43. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants performed each wrongful act or acts or omission described in the Statement of Claim was either performed by the Defendants here named or unnamed or its agents.

44. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant or their agents did knowingly derive some form of profit from the mentioned home mortgage.

45. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants did breach the covenant of good faith and fair dealings in each case of this Statement of Claim and specifically did cause a ‘note’ to be signed in favor of the Defendants, implying a covenant of good faith between the parties. The implied obligation encompasses both parties and any settlement by any promissory note, special service vehicle, settlement by insurance should be or should have been disclosed to the Plaintiffs.

46. The Defendants have breached the covenant of good faith & fair dealings by intentionally and/or negligently misrepresented or omitting to disclose material or knowledge that would have been pertinent to the Plaintiffs decision to enter into an agreement with the Defendants.

47. The Plaintiff will call the Lawyer and deponents to verify their involvement in swearing the affidavits to testify that:

(a) understands or appears to understand the statement contained in the document

(b) in the case of an affidavit, swears, declares or affirms that the contents of the document are true

(c) in the case of a solemn declaration, orally states that the deponent makes the solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same legal force and effect as if made under oath, and

(d) signs the document, or if permitted by statute, swears that the signature on the document is that of the deponent.

Particular notice must be taken to point (a) under the Banks book of Evidence 1879 & 1959, it shows that ‘signing’ said affidavits do not have sufficient knowledge to do so. (d), there is not a flesh and blood signature of either Summons or Affidavit. A company has no ability to make signatures.

48. The Plaintiff’s health and relationship have suffered greatly as a result of the Defendants, its agents and its servant’s action.

49. The Plaintiff is claiming for €9,900,900 damages.

50. Any Liens or Charges to be removed.

51. Plus Aggregated damages.

52. Any other orders that the Court may deem fit.

53. The cost of these proceedings.

 

Dated this day of 2013

Signed

Plaintiff: Lay Litigate: xxxxx xxxxxxx

Defendant: xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx.

Of: xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx