The High Court has awarded Liam Philpott and Anne Pounds the costs of interim and interlocutory injunction proceedings against Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC and receiver Colin Gaynor.
In a judgment delivered on 9 May 2025, Ms Justice Stack said the defendants had unreasonably contested the injunction application on the basis that the loan debt fell due only when Pepper Finance made a demand in March 2024. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the interim injunction, the interlocutory application and the costs hearing.
The injunction, granted in July 2024 and continued in April 2025, restrains the defendants from taking possession of, advertising for sale, offering for sale or selling any part of Philpott’s lands, as defined in the earlier injunction judgment. The current ruling concerned costs only; it did not finally decide the dispute over the loan, the limitation period or the receiver’s appointment.
Justice Stack said the interlocutory application had been a full-day hearing following affidavits and legal submissions. The defendants had raised numerous issues and lost on them, she said. She also noted that the defendants did not appear to have the 1990 Loan Offer Letter, which could establish when the loan fell due. Documents available at the interim stage pointed to 27 January 2011 as the due date, but the judge said the matter could change at trial.
The plaintiffs argued that the debt had become statute-barred. The judge said the available evidence raised serious questions about whether the mortgagee’s rights and power to appoint a receiver still existed when the receiver was appointed. She described it as unreasonable, for purposes of deciding costs, for the defendants to insist the debt became due only on demand in 2024 despite the documentary questions. She emphasised that the defendants remained entitled to litigate the due date, the limitation issue and the effect of an August 2012 letter at trial.
Justice Stack said the plaintiffs had been forced to seek court protection against what they alleged was unlawful interference with Philpott’s land and both plaintiffs’ livelihoods. She concluded it would be unjust to withhold their costs after the hard-fought injunction application. The judgment makes no final finding on the underlying allegations or on whether the debt was statute-barred.