The High Court has ordered Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC to join an ongoing property dispute as a co-defendant, finding its participation necessary to resolve claims concerning charges registered in its name.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore made the order under Order 15, rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts in a judgment delivered on 23 November 2023. The application was brought by the second, third and fourth defendants. The court did not determine whether Pepper acquired the underlying loans or whether the plaintiff is entitled to the properties.
Samantha Scriven’s case seeks, among other reliefs, declarations that she owns the properties and that they should be registered in her name free of encumbrances. Her amended claim says she advanced money to her husband, Gerard Scriven, and carried out unpaid work for him, in return for which she says she was entitled to his beneficial interest in the properties. These are pleaded claims, not findings made in this judgment.
The existing second, third and fourth defendants pleaded that Gerard Scriven borrowed €6.7 million in three loans in 2007, secured against the properties. They say the loans and charges were transferred through financial institutions, with Feniton Property Finance DAC ultimately transferring the charges to Pepper. The judge noted that Pepper’s ownership of the charges had been registered against all 12 properties. Whether the loans or securities were validly assigned remained disputed.
Gerard Scriven opposed Pepper’s joinder, challenging the evidence of the transfers, the redactions in supporting documents and Pepper’s capacity to own charges or participate in receiver arrangements. Justice O’Moore said those issues were for the trial, rather than the joinder application. Samantha Scriven’s solicitor neither opposed nor consented, raising concerns about the evidence and potential costs.
The judge concluded that the claims could not be properly considered without Pepper, because the requested relief could affect its registered interests. He said the joinder would allow the court to address the interests asserted in the properties. The order adds Pepper as a defendant; it does not resolve the parties’ substantive claims, the validity of the transfers, or any question about the receivers. The case had been issued in 2013 and was still awaiting trial.