Judgment: 2025-08-07 · Court archive

High Court declares judgment mortgage well charged over Gaffneys’ Meath property

The court also proposed a conditional sale if the judgment debt remains unpaid after six months, with final orders and any stay still to be addressed.

High Court · [2025] IEHC 460

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Alan Gaffney
  • Derek Gaffney (Plaintiff)
  • Philip Gaffney
  • Teresa Gaffney (Defendant)
  • Conleth Bradley (Judge)
What

The court also proposed a conditional sale if the judgment debt remains unpaid after six months, with final orders and any stay still to be addressed.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Folio 3976, County Meath
  • County Meath
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 19 August 2024

    The judge granted the plaintiffs an extension of time to give notice that they intended to seek changes to parts of the Circuit Court order. The notice had been sent outside the four-day period, but the court found there was no prejudice because the plaintiffs had told the defendants of their intention on 19 August 2024. The judge awarded the plaintiffs 50% of the measured costs of that application against Philip Gaffney, subject to agreement or assessment.

  • 2 October 2025

    The matter was listed for mention on 2 October 2025 to address final orders. The judgment records no final sale order at this stage.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has declared that a judgment mortgage held by Alan and Derek Gaffney is well charged against Philip and Teresa Gaffney’s interests in a property in County Meath. It also proposed that the property be sold if the judgment debt remains unpaid after six months, but said final orders, including whether a stay should apply, would be addressed later.

The High Court has declared that a judgment mortgage held by Alan and Derek Gaffney is well charged against Philip and Teresa Gaffney’s interests in a property in County Meath. It also proposed that the property be sold if the judgment debt remains unpaid after six months, but said final orders, including whether a stay should apply, would be addressed later.

In a judgment delivered on 7 August 2025, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley was dealing with the Gaffneys’ appeal from a Circuit Court decision in well-charging proceedings. The High Court reheard the matter. The underlying judgments arose from money advanced in 2015 and 2016 for Philip Gaffney’s business. Earlier High Court and Court of Appeal decisions had ordered repayment, including judgments against both defendants. The judgment mortgage was registered against their interests in Folio 3976, County Meath.

The court rejected Philip Gaffney’s applications to file a further defence or seek discovery, set aside an earlier High Court order, obtain a transcript of a hearing, remove the judgment mortgage, and require the plaintiffs to provide reference materials or verify statements. It held that the mortgage’s registration could not be challenged in these proceedings and that removal would require separate proceedings involving the Property Registration Authority. The court also said discovery was not automatic and no need for it had been established.

The judge granted the plaintiffs an extension of time to give notice that they intended to seek changes to parts of the Circuit Court order. The notice had been sent outside the four-day period, but the court found there was no prejudice because the plaintiffs had told the defendants of their intention on 19 August 2024. The judge awarded the plaintiffs 50% of the measured costs of that application against Philip Gaffney, subject to agreement or assessment.

The judgment proposed an account of other burdens on the property and inquiries into their priorities. It further proposed that, if the defendants did not pay US$272,043.70 to Alan Gaffney and US$100,000 to Derek Gaffney, together with ongoing statutory interest, within six months, the County Registrar for County Meath take steps to sell the property and distribute the proceeds. The judge’s proposed costs order in the substantive appeal remained provisional, and the court had yet to decide whether to stay any of the proposed orders or for how long.

The matter was listed for mention on 2 October 2025 to address final orders. The judgment records no final sale order at this stage.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review