The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Macken’s appeal against an order substituting Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Ltd as plaintiff in proceedings seeking possession of a property in County Roscommon. The court held that Pepper had produced enough evidence, at this procedural stage, to establish a prima facie basis for continuing the claim. It did not decide whether Pepper ultimately has the legal interest needed to obtain possession.
The case began with Danske Bank A/S trading as Danske Bank as plaintiff. Pepper sought substitution after loan and security documents were transferred in December 2017. Its evidence to the High Court described Pepper as holding legal title to the assets on trust for Proteus Funding DAC (PF). The High Court granted substitution and set aside a judgment made in November 2015.
On appeal, Macken relied on further documents describing additional transactions on 15 December 2017. The Court of Appeal said the High Court had been given only a partial account. PF had transferred a beneficial interest to Proteus RMBS DAC (PR), which then converted its interest into notes. The earlier account had left the High Court with the impression that PF remained the beneficial owner. The Court of Appeal called the disclosure “most unsatisfactory” and said the court should have been given the key elements of the transaction.
Pepper’s evidence to the appeal court said it remained the legal title holder and that no “Perfection Triggering Event” had occurred to divest it of that title. The Court of Appeal found that the documents did not clearly establish that Pepper had lost its legal interest. It concluded that Pepper’s evidence was sufficient for substitution, while stressing that Macken could challenge Pepper’s interest fully at trial, including through cross-examination of relevant witnesses. The court made no final determination on the validity or effect of the underlying transfers.
Macken also asked the court to send the substitution application back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. The appeal court refused, finding that an exhaustive examination of the transactions belonged at trial rather than on this procedural application. It dismissed the appeal, discharged the High Court costs order against Macken, and ordered Pepper to pay his costs and expenses of the appeal.