The Court of Appeal has refused an application by Patrick Halpin, Ann Keane, Elektron Holdings Ltd and Madison Manor Ltd to stay an order requiring them and other occupants to give Stairway Property Company Ltd vacant possession of Aberdeen Lodge, Sandymount.
The stay application concerned a High Court order, perfected on 19 May 2025, declaring Stairway the legal owner of the property and ordering vacant possession. The linked appeals in the possession case and constitutional proceedings are listed for hearing on 13 November 2025. The court considered only whether possession should be stayed pending those appeals; it did not decide the appeals themselves.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2025, Ms Justice Costello said an applicant for a stay must show an arguable basis for appeal. She concluded that none of the three grounds relied on by the appellants at the stay hearing was available to them on appeal.
One ground challenged the use of the statutory power of sale, arguing that a 2012 demand could not meet requirements under a provision that had been repealed at the time. The judge said the argument had not been raised in the High Court and would seriously prejudice Stairway, which could have responded with evidence about later demands or other mortgage defaults. She also said the mortgages expressly excluded the provision in question and that the challenge amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on earlier court decisions.
The appellants also argued that disclosure at trial of the beneficial ownership of Stairway and the property by Padraic Ryan, a former Pepper employee, had prevented them from preparing their case. The judge said the record showed they knew of Mr Ryan’s involvement before trial: their counsel identified him as Stairway’s beneficial owner in opening remarks, and Halpin testified that Mr Ryan had contacted him in February 2022 about the property and information from Pepper. The proposed new claim would require additional parties and a rehearing, the judge said. She found the argument was not advanced bona fide and was tactical.
A third ground concerned consumer protections for housing loans. The judge said the argument was new and contradicted the appellants’ position in the constitutional proceedings. It also relied on a guarantee that had not been proved in evidence at trial and could require further evidence and cross-examination.
Having found that the appellants had failed to establish any arguable ground of appeal, the court refused the stay. It did not need to decide whether the application was tactical or where the balance of justice lay.