The High Court has granted Carlisle Mortgages leave to seek a further order of possession over a mortgaged property in County Wexford, but stayed the effect of that leave for two months.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons made the ruling on 20 May 2021, on the lender’s third application under Order 42, rule 24 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The court did not itself make a new possession order in this judgment. It granted leave to issue execution, which is required before an order of possession can issue in the circumstances described.
A 2009 High Court order had directed John Sinnott to deliver possession of land in Ballinroad, County Wexford, to the lender. The proceedings arose from a short-term loan secured on the borrower’s family home. The borrower did not defend the original proceedings, and the loan had not been repaid within the agreed period.
A first order of possession issued in 2010. An attempt to execute it was unsuccessful, and the borrower gave undertakings to the High Court in 2012. Between 2012 and 2017, he proposed surrendering other lands in satisfaction of the debt, but no settlement was concluded. The lender obtained leave to execute in 2017 and again in July 2019. The latter order was stayed for two months, and a later order of possession was not executed.
The lender said practical difficulties had prevented it from obtaining an execution order within 12 months of the July 2019 leave. These included difficulty serving that order, pandemic-related restrictions on access to the High Court Central Office, and the need to obtain a further letter of authorisation.
The borrower opposed the application, arguing it was not urgent and citing his spouse’s ill-health, the pandemic and ongoing efforts to reach a resolution. His solicitor also submitted that the lender’s limitation concerns were misplaced.
Justice Simons found the delay was adequately explained and arose from matters outside the lender’s control. He said the time elapsed since July 2019 had caused no prejudice to the borrower, who had remained in occupation of the property. The judge noted that no payments on the outstanding loan had been made since May 2009. He said the spouse’s ill-health warranted sympathy, and imposed a two-month stay.
The court will hear the parties further on costs. The matter was listed to return on 21 May 2021.