Mr. Edmund Honohan:

They produce the contract. The contract will state firm A shall be the holder of the legal title and the judge will say it holds the legal title, but it is meaningless in law. It is simply a label put on it by the contracting parties. It is not a question of the probity of the evidence; it is simply a label passed up to the judge as if it has some significance legally. It does not. In these circumstances, you ask why the provision is in the Central Bank (Amendment) Act 2018, so you are going round in circles. The answer is that because they had a problem with the registration of title, they found another formula to enable somebody to go into court instead of the investor and say they are entitled to the order for possession. I am sorry, but it is weird stuff.