The High Court has proposed an order for possession in favour of Ennis Property Finance DAC after finding that the principal monies secured by a registered charge over property in Galway were due. The court has yet to hear the parties on whether execution should be stayed and on costs.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons gave judgment on 3 February 2020 in an application under section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964. The application concerned a mortgage and charge Henry Greally entered into with Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd in 2004. Ennis Property said it had succeeded to the mortgagee’s interest.
The court described the governing question as whether the principal monies secured by the charge had become due under the loan arrangements. Ennis Property relied on two loan agreements, for €450,000 in 2003 and €110,000 in 2006, and evidence that instalments had not been paid. It also exhibited a letter of demand dated 22 February 2017 and documents supporting the transfer of the mortgage interest.
Mr Greally opposed the application. The judge said his affidavit largely addressed separate summary judgment proceedings, including the amount alleged to be owed and personal guarantees that were not exhibited in the possession application. Mr Greally asserted that he was not the legal or beneficial owner of the property, but gave no explanation. The folio exhibited by Ennis Property recorded him as full owner; no claim was made that the folio was incorrect or out of date.
At the hearing on 27 January 2020, counsel for Mr Greally confirmed that he had not denied on affidavit entering either loan agreement or the 2004 mortgage. No issue was taken with the transfer of the mortgagee’s interest to Ennis Property.
On the uncontroverted evidence, the judge was satisfied that Ennis Property owned the registered charge and that the principal monies were due. He said the mortgage documents appeared to show that the power of sale had arisen, and concluded that Ennis Property was entitled to possession under section 62(7). The judgment says the judge proposed to make the possession order; it does not record a decision on a stay or costs, which were left for further hearing.