The High Court has postponed a decision on whether to order the sale of a Dublin home to enforce a judgment debt owed by Mabel Savage to Drillfix Limited. Ms Justice Dunne made a well-charging order over Ms Savage’s interest in the property and declared that €165,247.75, with interest, was due to the company. She adjourned the proceedings so that further enquiries could be made before the court decides whether to order a sale.
Drillfix had obtained judgment against Ms Savage in November 2007 and registered it as a mortgage against her interest in the property at 22 Ardagh Road, Crumlin. Her sister, Ruth Savage, jointly owns the property. Drillfix brought the current proceedings in March 2009, seeking declarations about the debt and enforcement, including a sale of the property.
The sisters told the court they had lived there since 1979 and continued to pay the property’s mortgage. Ruth Savage said she had no part in the wrongdoing that led to the judgment and would face losing her home if the property were sold. The judgment records that Mabel Savage had embezzled money from Drillfix over a period of about eight years before April 2005. The sisters said they had offered a €40,000 loan and monthly payments of €100, but Drillfix rejected the offer. The judgment also records that the €40,000 was no longer available.
Counsel submitted that the property was worth about €350,000 and that a sale might yield Drillfix no more than €84,000 from Mabel Savage’s share of the equity, before sale and legal costs. The judge noted that the valuation had been presented in argument, with no valuation evidence from an auctioneer. The mortgage position also required clarification: Ruth Savage’s affidavit referred to eight undischarged mortgages, while the court search showed one mortgage apart from the judgment mortgage. The judge considered that the reference might instead concern top-ups or loan accounts.
Applying the approach in *First National Building Society v Ring*, the judge said the court needed information about the property’s value, the mortgage balances, whether a sale was feasible, its costs and the likely net proceeds attributable to Mabel Savage’s interest. That information might help Ruth Savage assess whether she could buy her sister’s interest. The court did not refuse a sale; it deferred that decision until the enquiries were completed and said it would hear the parties again.