The Court of Appeal has joined Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC as a co-respondent in two pending appeals brought by Jerry Beades. The order allows Pepper to participate in the appeals; it does not determine the substantive claims under appeal or finally establish Pepper’s entitlement to the loan, mortgage or possession order.
The application was heard on 25 September 2020. Pepper said it had acquired Beltany Property Finance DAC’s legal interest in the relevant mortgage assets under deeds dated 7 August 2020. It sought only to be added as a respondent to the appeals, alongside the existing respondents.
Beades opposed the application. He challenged the evidence of the transfer, including the deeds’ execution by attorneys, the powers of attorney and redactions in the documents. He also argued that Pepper had not met the required standard of proof and questioned whether the transfer included the benefit of the possession order.
The appeals arise from proceedings begun in 2006 by IIB Homeloans Limited, which sought possession of two properties in Dublin. The High Court granted a possession order in 2008, and the Supreme Court affirmed it in 2014. The Court of Appeal said the validity of that possession order was no longer in issue between the parties. It also outlined subsequent transfers of the mortgagee’s interest, first to KBC Bank Ireland plc and then to Beltany.
Justice Máire Whelan said the joinder application was procedural. Because the possession order was final but still required a further process to enforce, the court applied the balance of probabilities to Pepper’s application. It found the deeds and supporting material showed that Pepper had a material interest in the appeals. The court declined to turn the application into a mini-trial on the validity or ultimate effect of the transfer documents.
The court held that Pepper was entitled to be joined in both appeals. It expressly said the order did not decide whether Pepper or its co-respondents would ultimately establish entitlement to the loan facilities, mortgage, security, or benefit of earlier judgments and orders.
The court proposed no order as to the costs of the application. Either party could seek a brief further hearing on costs within 14 days of delivery of the judgment. Noonan and Haughton JJ agreed with the judgment.