The High Court has refused Thomas Hayes’s application for default judgment in a dispute over a mortgage and the appointment of receivers over a Waterford property. The ruling concerns only that application; it does not decide the factual or legal merits of the underlying claim or any defence.
Hayes alleges that a 2005 mortgage deed produced by the defendants is fabricated and says he did not sign it. He has also alleged that former advisers misappropriated loan funds. The judge noted that the accountant and solicitor he accused are not parties to the proceedings and have not had an opportunity to respond to those allegations. Hayes acknowledged at the hearing that the alleged fraud could not be attributed to the defendants.
The defendants say the mortgage secured Hayes’s indebtedness to Ulster Bank and that the charge was registered in 2005. The first defendant says it later acquired the bank’s interest, and that the second and third defendants were appointed receivers in September 2017 after repayments were not made. The property was sold in August 2022; registration of the purchaser was described as pending on the folio.
Hayes sought judgment based on what he called a lack of evidence from the defendants. They argued that a plaintiff cannot obtain default judgment merely by challenging an opponent’s evidence, and that the motion had no proper procedural basis. The judge said Hayes had not established a prima facie case even if there had been a procedural basis for the application. The judgment also found that the defendants had a strong arguable defence, including the registered charge, and that there was no credible basis on the material presented to impugn the receivers’ appointment.
The court refused the application. It did not determine whether Hayes signed the mortgage, whether funds were misappropriated, or whether the defendants are liable. The judge said those matters may be pursued at trial if properly pleaded. Any fraud, forgery or fabrication claims would require detailed particulars; the judgment also said the plaintiff would bear the burden of substantiating his claims and that detailed factual and expert evidence, including independent handwriting evidence, would be required. Both sides may present evidence and submissions and cross-examine witnesses at trial.