The Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals by Jerry Beades against a High Court judge’s refusal to let him address hearings concerning possession of two Dublin properties occupied by people identified in the proceedings as persons unknown.
The appeals concerned applications by Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC against occupants of 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin 7, and 31 Richmond Avenue, Fairview, Dublin 3. The applications sought possession and control of the properties, along with keys and access devices, and interlocutory orders pending trial. Beades was not named as a defendant in either case.
The court said Beades had mortgaged both properties to the lender’s predecessor, IIB Homeloans Ltd, in 2003 in connection with liabilities that included a €1.2 million loan. After default, IIB obtained a possession order in 2008. The Supreme Court dismissed Beades’s appeal and affirmed that order in 2014. The Court of Appeal said the order remained in force and that Beades had no right to possession or to receive rent from the properties after it was made.
The Court of Appeal rejected Beades’s argument that filing an appearance entitled him to participate in the later proceedings. It found he had not met the exceptional threshold for being joined as a defendant against the respondent’s wishes. The cases concerned the occupants’ possession, the court said, and Beades’s presence was not necessary to decide those issues. It also rejected his allegations of bias against the High Court judge.
Beades raised further allegations, including that the mortgage signature was forged and that the earlier possession order had been obtained fraudulently. The Court of Appeal held that he could not use these proceedings to reopen or collaterally challenge the possession order after it had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Those allegations were not findings made in the appeals.
The court dismissed both appeals. It said Beades had no locus standi or entitlement to be heard in the underlying interlocutory applications, and that the High Court judge had not denied his constitutional rights or shown bias. The court did not decide the possession applications themselves or make a final costs order. Instead, it invited written submissions on costs within specified 14-day periods; absent a submission seeking costs, there would be no order as to costs.