The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jerry Beades’s appeal against a High Court order naming Everyday Finance DAC as sole plaintiff in proceedings concerning a possession order over three Dublin properties.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s refusal to allow Beades to cross-examine Andrew McCudden, Everyday Finance’s legal manager, on two affidavits supporting the lender’s application. The High Court had also granted Everyday Finance’s requests to be named sole plaintiff, to issue execution on the possession order, and to amend the order’s title. Those orders were the subject of this appeal.
The underlying proceedings began in 2012, when Permanent TSB sought possession of three Fairview properties held as security for Beades’s liabilities. A possession order was made in 2014 and upheld on appeal in 2017. Permanent TSB transferred its mortgage rights to Cheldon Property Finance Ltd in 2015. Cheldon later transferred the loans and mortgage to Everyday Finance under a deed dated 18 April 2019 and an assignment dated 19 July 2019. The Court of Appeal said Beades had been notified of the transfer.
Beades argued that the High Court should not have heard Everyday Finance’s application while related appeals were pending. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, holding that the High Court retained jurisdiction to hear the application, which arose from a later change in title. It also noted that no stay prevented the proceedings from advancing.
The court found no sufficient basis for cross-examination. McCudden’s affidavits said he relied on his knowledge and the company’s books and records. The second affidavit corrected an earlier statement about beneficial ownership: the court said LC Asset 1 S.à r.l. held the beneficial interest, while Everyday Finance held legal title for its benefit. The court considered the affidavits together and found that the correction did not warrant cross-examination. It also said no evidence of money laundering or deliberate concealment had been put before the High Court.
The court rejected Beades’s argument that Everyday Finance had only a “bare title” and his champerty argument, finding no evidence of champerty. It held that the legal title holder was entitled to enforce the mortgagee’s rights and remedies. The appeal was dismissed.
The court proposed one set of costs for the related appeals, with costs to be assessed if not agreed. Either party could seek a brief supplemental hearing on costs within 14 days; absent such an application, the proposed costs order would be made.