The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jerry Beades’s appeal against orders substituting Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC for Beltany Property Finance DAC in proceedings over two Dublin properties, and allowing Pepper to seek execution of a 2008 possession order.
The appeal concerned a High Court decision made by Twomey J. on 18 November 2020. Pepper had applied to become the sole plaintiff after Beltany transferred its interests in the properties, related mortgage and loan facilities to Pepper by deeds dated 7 August 2020. Pepper also sought liberty to issue execution on the earlier possession order and an amendment to the case title.
The Court of Appeal said the High Court had been entitled to hear the application even though a related application was then before the appeal court. That earlier appeal court application sought to have Pepper joined as a co-respondent in two other appeals in the same proceedings. Whelan J. decided that application on 17 February 2021, finding ample evidence of a transmission of interest and rejecting objections to the deeds’ execution in that procedural context.
Binchy J., with Whelan and Ní Raifeartaigh JJ. agreeing, held that the February decision determined the question of transmission of interest raised by the later High Court application. The applications had different purposes, but required consideration of the same deeds, legal provisions and arguments. The difference between joining Pepper for the limited purpose of the earlier appeals and naming it sole plaintiff did not affect whether its interest had been transferred.
The court therefore dismissed the appeal against the High Court’s order under Order 17, rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. It also dismissed the challenges to the orders under Order 42, rule 24(a), granting Pepper liberty to issue execution, and Order 28, rule 12, amending the case title. Beades had advanced no separate grounds or submissions addressing those orders; the court concluded that his challenge to them depended on overturning the substitution order.
The court did not decide a new possession claim. The 2008 possession order had previously been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014. Binchy J. gave a provisional view that Pepper should receive the costs of the appeal, with written submissions invited from any party seeking a different costs order. The judgment does not state a final costs order.