A spokesman for MABS, which assists borrowers in difficulties, said that the organisation was concerned about the number of summonses being lodged in the court, particularly as the arrears in most cases were below the 38,000 threshold generally applied for in financial cases in the High Court.

He suggested that these cases could be held in the Circuit Court, where legal costs for borrowers would be lower.

He also said that the organisation wanted the next government to introduce a non-adversarial method of dealing with consumer debt issues. "What we would be fearful of is that if there was a downturn in the market and people get into debt, there's only the court route, " he said.

However, a solicitor who specialises in High Court repossession cases, Maurice Lyons, said that there were sound legal grounds for pursuing the cases in the court.

He said that, while in many cases the arrears involved appeared quite small, there were clauses in most mortgage contracts which meant that if a certain number of payments were missed, the borrower automatically owes the full amount of the mortgage, which is always above the 38,000 threshold.

Lyons also said that, in many cases, the legal costs involved in a High Court repossession case were similar to those of an equivalent Circuit Court case.

"There's no real difference in basic costs. In the Masters Court [where High Court repossession cases are dealt with], people who consent to the repossession order may actually save on costs. However, if they fight the order and start filing affidavits etc, then the costs do increase, " he said.

Lyons said that the reason cost levels were similar was that the Circuit Court usually heard full hearings into repossessions whereas in the High Court cases were dealt with using documentation.

He added that, regardless of the adversarial image of the courts, lenders usually took a sympathetic approach to arrears and would try their best to reach an agreed settlement with the borrowers involved.