The Court of Appeal has upheld an order requiring Martin Reilly and Donna Heslin to leave a house in County Cavan, finding they had not established an arguable right to occupy it against its registered owner, Sylvia Fox.
The ruling, delivered on 22 May 2025, dismissed the appeal against a High Court decision made on 7 February 2025. That decision directed the appellants to vacate and yield up possession and restrained them from entering the property, changing its locks, obstructing access or causing a nuisance to Ms Fox. The appeal court upheld the decision; it did not determine the separate proceedings involving the former developer, Patrick Stack.
Ms Fox bought the house from Everyday Finance DAC, described in the judgment as mortgagee in possession, for €130,000 in June 2024. She was not yet registered owner when the High Court heard the application, but the Court of Appeal was given a certificate showing her registration as owner from 19 July 2024. The appeal proceeded on that basis.
Mr Reilly said he had occupied the property as a tenant since 2015 under an agreement with Mr Stack, and had paid €20,000 for a purchase option, alongside annual rent of €100. The court described the one-page lease as lasting until a proposed sale to Mr Reilly was completed. It concluded the appellants had not made an arguable case that this arrangement bound Ms Fox or her predecessors in title. They had not claimed that AIB or Everyday Finance consented to the lease, nor explained how it qualified under the statutory power to lease.
The court agreed that the mortgage had not been produced and that a negative pledge clause requiring consent could not be assumed. But it said that did not resolve the appeal: the appellants still had to explain the legal basis on which the lease bound the mortgagee or its successor. The court also said an argument about notice under residential tenancies legislation was outside the notice of appeal and could not be raised in this appeal.
The appellants also relied on a lis pendens connected to proceedings brought by Mr Stack and Mary Stack challenging the transfer of a loan from AIB to Everyday Finance and seeking, among other relief, rescission of property sales. The appeal court said those proceedings did not involve Ms Fox and that statutory protections for purchasers from mortgagees meant her title was not impeachable on the grounds raised. It also rejected the complaints about non-disclosure and the damages undertaking.
The court directed Ms Fox to file written submissions on costs within 14 days, with the appellants allowed a further 14 days to reply. It made no final costs determination in this judgment.