The High Court has found Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC entitled to possession of a Foxrock property after rejecting a defendant’s attempt to set aside two 2016 orders and concluding that the mortgagee had established its case.
In a judgment delivered on 26 August 2025, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the possession appeal was heard de novo, meaning the High Court considered the evidence afresh. The defendants did not dispute that they had borrowed €1.25 million in 2007, fallen into arrears from 2010 and failed to repay after formal demands.
The defendant’s opposition at the 10 July 2025 hearing focused on a motion seeking to set aside orders made in January and July 2016. Those orders had joined Bank of Scotland plc as a co-plaintiff and corrected a mistaken reference in the earlier order from Order 18 Rule 4 to Order 17 Rule 4.
The judge held that both orders were made while the appeal was live and were final under section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936. Relying on Court of Appeal authority, he ruled that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain what was, in substance, an appeal against its own final orders. The motion was therefore unsuccessful.
The judgment also reviewed the history of the loan and successive transfers. It found prima facie evidence of an unbroken chain of ownership from Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited to Bank of Scotland, then Tanager Limited, Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC and Mars. The judge said the evidence established Mars’s ownership of the mortgage and charge, and that the right to seek possession had arisen and was exercisable.
The defendant’s affidavits raised issues including securitisation, alleged unfair terms, compliance with the mortgage arrears code, the authority of a bank employee and alleged wrongdoing by lenders. The judge concluded that these claims were unsupported or did not amount to a credible defence. He also said the possession claim was brought bona fide to realise the security.
The Circuit Court had ordered possession in 2014 and stayed execution for four months. The High Court’s judgment states that Mars was entitled to possession, but final orders, including costs, were to be made at a further listing on 10 October 2025. The judge gave a preliminary view that costs should follow the event and said any stay, if sought and granted, was unlikely to exceed four months. The judgment does not record the final orders made at that later listing.