THE Master of the High Court said that profits made by financial institutions could be taken into account by courts considering applications to repossess family homes.
Edmund Honohan said repossessions should be deferred where a "fire sale" can be shown to be unjust.
The barrister, who has sided with distressed borrowers in the past, also said that firms standing to make "windfall profits" from fire sales of family homes may be looked on unsympathetically by the courts.
In a paper to be given at a legal conference later this week, Mr Honohan suggested that the Government's new personal insolvency service will not keep applications for repossessions out of the courts.
The Government's stated policy was that family home repossessions should be a last resort, but Mr Honohan suggested that lenders couldn't be forced to waive their right to repossess an asset.
He suggested that applications for family home repossession cases will continue to come before the courts, despite the Government's hope that such cases would be settled by agreement through the new personal insolvency service.
In a veiled criticism of the Government's new debt relief scheme, he said the Government was hoping to pressurise lenders to leave family homes alone by reaching agreement with distressed borrowers.
But he said that Personal Insolvency Practitioners (PIPs) "now report an alarming dysfunctionality with the legislation" as only a small pool of borrowers may benefit from it.
Mr Honohan has criticised banks in the past for driving some debt-ridden borrowers to suicide. He criticised creditors pursuing to the bitter end people who could not repay their loans, while the banks had already written off debt for tax purposes.
His paper will be given at a conference in Griffith College on Friday.