The High Court has struck out Francis J. Masterson’s proceedings against Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC, finding they sought to reopen issues already raised and determined in earlier possession litigation over a Westmeath property.
In a judgment delivered on 9 September 2024, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson ruled on the remaining part of Pepper’s motion to strike out proceedings issued in January 2023. The claim sought, among other reliefs, €2.5 million in damages and removal of charges from a Land Registry folio. Masterson alleged that his mortgage had been sold to Windmill Funding DAC and that Pepper was not entitled to enforce the security. Those were allegations, not findings in the present case.
The dispute followed possession proceedings begun in the Circuit Court in 2014. That court granted Pepper an order for possession in March 2019. The High Court dismissed Masterson’s appeal later that year, and the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in August 2021. An execution order issued in October 2022; Pepper put its execution on hold after the new proceedings were brought.
The judge said Masterson acknowledged that his arguments about Pepper’s entitlement to enforce the mortgage had been raised in the earlier proceedings and appeals. She noted that no new issue or evidence was put forward as the basis for the 2023 claim. Masterson continued to dispute Pepper’s ownership and said documents he had sought in the earlier case had not been adequately produced. The court’s decision did not determine the underlying mortgage dispute afresh; it addressed whether the new proceedings could continue after the earlier litigation.
Justice Jackson found the claim against Pepper frivolous and vexatious as an abuse of process under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Alternatively, she said it was bound to fail on the merits in light of the previous litigation and struck it out under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The second to ninth defendants had already been struck out of the case by an earlier order in May 2023.
The judge granted three parts of Pepper’s motion and said it was unnecessary to determine another part. The plaintiff’s separate discovery motion was not decided on its merits; the parties had agreed it would fall if Pepper succeeded in striking out the claim. The judge indicated that Pepper was entitled to its costs, but allowed either side 21 days to make written submissions, with 14 days for a response, before any oral submissions and a further decision on costs.