The High Court has granted Permanent TSB an order for possession of three properties on Fairview Avenue, Dublin, after finding that loans secured on the properties were in default. The court left any ancillary orders and whether a stay should be granted for a further hearing.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern delivered the judgment on 25 February 2014 in proceedings brought by Permanent TSB plc, trading as Permanent TSB, against Jerry Beades. The bank sought possession of Nos. 2, 3 and 4, Fairview Avenue, under mortgages securing a €1.2 million loan. The judgment describes the land as unregistered.
The judge found that the loan offer was accepted and drawn down on 20 December 2002, and that Beades executed a mortgage over the properties on 23 December 2002. The mortgage was registered in the Registry of Deeds in February 2003. The court was satisfied that the loan was in default and that the properties had been mortgaged as security.
Beades raised procedural and legal objections, including that the summons should have been re-served after amendments, that bank affidavits did not meet requirements under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, and that demand letters were not received or were sent to the wrong address. He also sought to cross-examine two bank-affiliated deponents. The judge ruled that the cross-examination notices were late and did not comply with procedural requirements. After considering the issues raised, he declined to order cross-examination and said the affidavits could be admitted with special leave if necessary.
The judge found that the affidavits identified both deponents as officers of the bank and that their evidence about its records had not been rebutted. He also said the evidence showed Beades had moved between addresses and was then residing in Northern Ireland. The court found no defect in the demand letters. It said there was no evidence that any property was a family home when the money was lent, and that the documents indicated the loan related to a bed and breakfast business at the premises.
The judgment said Beades had not filed an affidavit disputing the loan agreement or the amount due, and had produced no evidence supporting his submissions. The judge noted that Beades could take steps later if he wished to dispute part of the debt, but found he had raised no defence to the possession claim. The possession order was made for the lands and premises listed in the special summons; the judgment did not determine whether a stay would be granted.