The High Court has upheld a Circuit Court order for possession in favour of Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Designated Activity Company, finding that the lender was entitled to the order and that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to make it.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 14 November 2019 in an appeal by Michael Egan, also known as Gerard or Gerry, and Eileen Egan against the Circuit Court’s 20 November 2018 order. The High Court said the proofs presented by Pepper’s counsel were in order and the Circuit Court had been correct to issue the possession order.
The judgment traced the loan to a home loan agreement the Egans entered into with GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans Limited on 7 November 2005. It noted that an affidavit supporting the proceedings mistakenly named the lender as GE Capital Woodchester Finance Limited, but said the loan documents clearly identified Home Loans Limited. The court said nothing turned on the error. It also noted that the loan cheque had issued from GE Capital Woodchester Limited and that this raised no issue.
The lender later changed its name to Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Limited in 2012 and converted to a designated activity company in 2015. The court cited section 63(12) of the Companies Act 2014, which provides that such a re-registration does not affect a company’s rights or obligations or render its legal proceedings defective.
The court also considered a Land Registry entry relating to the mortgage. The mortgage had initially been registered in 2008 in the name of GE Capital Woodchester Limited. In 2015, the folio was amended to record GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans Limited as mortgagee. The Egans said they had not received notice of the change. The judge treated the original entry as a clerical error and said the Land Registry could correct it under its rules without notice. He added that, even if notice should have been given, the Egans had suffered no prejudice.
The Circuit Court had amended the claim’s stated basis for jurisdiction. It deleted a paragraph referring to proceedings concerning a principal private residence and a mortgage created before 1 December 2009, and inserted a statement that the mortgaged property’s market value did not exceed €3 million. The High Court said no error arose from that amendment.
Justice Barrett acknowledged the court’s sympathy for the Egans, but concluded that Pepper was entitled to the possession order. The judgment upheld the Circuit Court’s decision on appeal.