The High Court has declared Robert Foley’s interests in two County Limerick properties well charged for a €415,997.15 judgment debt, clearing the way for a sale if the debt is not paid. The court also directed that accounts and enquiries be taken, but listed the proceedings for final orders on 14 October 2024.
Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC brought the proceedings under section 117 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. It relied on a judgment mortgage registered against Mr Foley’s interests in Folios LK36370F and LK59996F in January 2016. Pepper sought a declaration that the debt was secured on those interests and an order for sale in default of payment.
Pepper told the court that it acquired the judgment mortgage after Danske Bank A/S transferred secured assets, with Montepico Investment DAC nominating Pepper as the recipient. The judgment records that an assignment deed dated 15 October 2021 was initially missing from the court papers because of a clerical error. Pepper later supplied it. The court said that deed and the transfer documents purported to show the transfer of the judgment mortgage, but did not by themselves establish that the loan or judgment had been transferred.
Mr Foley raised eight objections, including that Pepper needed leave to issue execution, had not proved ownership of the mortgage or underlying loan, and had not given prior notice of the assignment. He also challenged the documents’ redactions and execution, and questioned whether the relevant parties held banking licences.
Justice Rory Mulcahy rejected the objections. He ruled that an application to have a judgment mortgage declared well charged is not an application to issue execution under Order 42 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He found that Pepper’s registration as owner of the judgment mortgage on a subsidiary folio was conclusive evidence of ownership. For this application, the registered ownership of the mortgage was sufficient; Pepper did not also have to prove ownership of the original loan or judgment.
The judge found no relevant factual dispute about notice: Mr Foley had said he received no prior notice, while the law required notice for the assignment to take effect against him, not advance notice. The court also said the challenge to how the transfer documents were executed was a matter for the Property Registration Authority, absent an application to rectify the register.
The court was satisfied that none of Mr Foley’s arguments justified refusing the well-charging declaration. It proposed an order for the necessary accounts and enquiries and, if the debt remained unpaid within a period to be determined, an order for sale of the properties. The judgment does not specify that period or record that a final sale order had yet been made.