The Court of Appeal has dismissed Cabot Financial (Ireland) Limited’s appeal against a refusal to let it execute a 2010 judgment against Thomas Joyce, finding that the company had not reasonably explained its long delay in seeking enforcement.
The High Court had entered judgment for €271,637.31 against Mr Joyce on 15 November 2010. The judgment was registered as a mortgage against his interests in three properties. A receiver sold one property in March 2015, and the small balance left after expenses was applied to the debt. The other two properties appear to have comprised Mr Joyce’s principal private residence.
Mr Joyce was adjudicated bankrupt on his own application in October 2017. The two remaining properties were registered in the Official Assignee’s name in 2018 and re-vested in Mr Joyce after his discharge from bankruptcy in October 2020. Cabot, which had acquired the judgment debt, applied in May 2021 to be substituted as plaintiff and for leave to execute. The substitution was not part of the appeal.
The High Court refused leave. It rejected Cabot’s explanation that bankruptcy had prevented enforcement, holding that a judgment mortgagee could pursue security against a bankrupt’s property. The judge also found that the existence of a prior charge and transfers of the debt did not explain the delay on the evidence presented.
On appeal, Cabot argued that its mistaken understanding of the effect of bankruptcy could still count as a reason for the delay, even if the understanding was legally wrong. The Court of Appeal said the explanation need not be legally correct, but a mistaken belief must itself be reasonable in the circumstances. It found that Cabot had provided no evidence about who gave the advice, when it was given or how the mistake arose. The court described enforcement against a bankrupt’s property as a straightforward procedure and upheld the finding that the explanation was not reasonable.
The court also said that even if the explanation had crossed the threshold for considering leave, the balance of justice would not require the High Court’s decision to be overturned. It considered the length of the delay, the expiry of the 12-year period for proceedings on the judgment, and the respondent’s entry into and discharge from bankruptcy. It did not decide whether any later enforcement proceedings would be statute-barred.
The appeal was dismissed. The court said Mr Joyce was presumptively entitled to his outlay and expenses; either side had 14 days to seek an early hearing if they disputed that costs position.