The Circuit Court has approved personal insolvency arrangements for Shane and Diane O’Brien after rejecting Pepper Finance DAC’s objection to the proposed terms.
In a judgment delivered on 10 April 2025, Judge Mary O’Malley Costello found that the arrangements were reasonable, proportionate and more sustainable than the lender’s counterproposal. The court said the evidence justified reducing the mortgage debt to the value of the property to support repayments and reduce the risk of long-term default.
The proposals provide for interlocking 24-month arrangements. They capitalise mortgage arrears stated in the judgment as €377,043.65, extend the mortgage term to 240 months and write down the debt to the property’s €385,000 value. The judgment says €218,473.96 would be written off and treated as unsecured debt. Monthly repayments would be €962.50 during the first 24 months, with a 3% fixed rate, then an estimated €2,503.26 from month 25, with a 4% variable rate.
Pepper argued that a 12-month arrangement it proposed would be fairer. Its counterproposal included a 252-month term and a write-down to €450,000. It submitted that the couple could repay more as their dependent completed education and, later, if they continued working while receiving pensions. The court considered those long-range income projections speculative, noting that Shane O’Brien’s maintenance work could affect his ability to continue working after retirement age.
The judge found the proposed arrangements used the couple’s available means during the PIA. For months 25 to 60, the projected monthly surplus was €142. The court said the creditor’s proposal would leave the couple about €5 below reasonable living expenses in that period, which could not be required under the Act. For months 61 to 204, the proposed arrangement was projected to leave about €700 a month, which the court considered acceptable given the variable mortgage rate and potential increases.
The court also held that Diane O’Brien could seek a review despite the small share of the overall debt held by the creditor that supported her arrangement. It found sufficient grounds to review her proposal alongside Shane O’Brien’s, whose only creditor was Pepper.
The court refused to uphold Pepper’s objection and approved the arrangements. It invited submissions on costs and, after receiving them, made no order as to costs.