The High Court has dismissed Martin Wickham’s appeal against a Circuit Court order granting Start Mortgages possession of a property at Wheatfield, Ardclough, Co Kildare. Mr Justice Barr proposed affirming the Circuit Court order and lifting the stay on possession. The parties were given two weeks to make written submissions on the final order and costs, with the case listed for mention on 9 April 2024.
The appeal concerned a possession order made on 25 January 2023. Start Mortgages claimed that Permanent TSB had lent Mr Wickham €1 million in 2006, secured by a mortgage over Wheatfield, and that he had stopped paying the loan. The High Court found that he had made no payment since February 2012 and that the bank’s interest in the loan and security had been transferred to Start Mortgages in 2019.
Mr Wickham, representing himself, argued that Wheatfield had been his principal private residence since about 1999 or 2000. He said the mortgage should therefore have been dealt with under the Central Bank’s Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears and Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process. The court noted that Start Mortgages accepted the property later became his principal residence, but found that documents he signed when taking out the loan described it as an investment property and identified an address in Courtown, Co Wexford, as his principal residence. The judge concluded that a later change in residence did not alter the original loan terms. The court also found that the relevant moratorium period had been observed.
A second dispute concerned whether the loan was interest-only for its full 25-year term. Mr Wickham relied on parts of the European Standardised Information Sheet, while Start Mortgages relied on the facility letter and other terms providing for interest-only repayments initially, with the lender entitled to review that arrangement. The judge found that the contract allowed the bank to move repayments to principal and interest in 2011. Mr Wickham had asked the bank at the time to continue interest-only repayments, rather than asserting that the change breached the contract.
The court found a clear event of default, including on the basis of Mr Wickham’s acceptance that he had made no payments since February 2012. It rejected his arguments about the format of the account statements and the absence of a stamp-duty exemption certificate for the transfer documents.
The judgment sets out the court’s proposed final order: dismiss the appeal, affirm the Circuit Court order and lift the stay. It does not record the final order or a decision on costs; those matters were left for further submissions and the April mention.