The High Court has found Avril O’Halloran in deliberate and wilful contempt for continuing to occupy a house in Tramore after being ordered to deliver possession to Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC.
Mr Justice Cregan said on 16 May 2025 that Ms O’Halloran should be committed to prison until she purges her contempt and agrees to leave the property. He said he would hear the parties further on the exact terms of the order. The judgment therefore records the court’s decision on contempt and its view on committal, while leaving the precise terms to be settled.
The case concerns 21 Roselawn, Tramore, County Waterford. Avril and Anne O’Halloran borrowed €150,000 from EBS Building Society in 2007 and secured the loan with a mortgage over the property. After the borrowers defaulted, a County Registrar made an undefended possession order in 2018. The loan and mortgage were later transferred to Mars Capital, which obtained possession through the sheriff in November 2023.
The judge found that Avril O’Halloran re-entered the property within days. In March 2024, the High Court ordered the defendants to deliver possession, restrained them from entering or interfering with the property, and required them to hand over keys and access devices. That order was stayed for one month. The court later authorised substituted service of the order with a penal endorsement after personal service and registered-post attempts failed.
Mars Capital brought the attachment and committal motion in October 2024. Ms O’Halloran contested it, raising arguments about the lender’s name, service of the proceedings, its company status, the entry of the March order, alleged tampering, and the County Registrar’s authority to make the original possession order. The judge rejected those arguments, finding that the name error had been corrected and that the Registrar had statutory authority. He also held that the committal motion was not a forum to reargue issues concerning earlier possession orders.
The judge said the order was clear, Ms O’Halloran had received it with the penal endorsement, understood what compliance required, and had refused to comply without reasonable grounds. He found beyond reasonable doubt that her contempt was deliberate and wilful. The judgment says she remained in occupation at the time it was delivered.