The High Court has granted injunctions to Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC after finding it had established a strong case that a woman’s return to a property in Carrickmacross, Co Monaghan, was unlawful trespass.
Mr Justice Kennedy’s judgment, delivered on 28 July 2023, concerned a motion seeking orders restraining the defendants from trespassing at the property on Castleblayney Road. The court’s decision was interlocutory: it assessed whether the injunctions should be granted at this stage, rather than determining every dispute raised in the affidavits.
Mars said it became mortgagee in possession after the Monaghan County Sheriff executed an order for possession on 24 March 2023 and handed the property to its agent. It said the second named defendant re-entered three days later. She accepted that she returned, but disputed the lender’s entitlement and argued, among other things, that the debt was statute-barred and that procedural defects invalidated enforcement.
The judge held that the motion was not the appropriate forum for a collateral challenge to the possession and execution orders. He was not satisfied there was an arguable basis that the limitation or interest-rate arguments invalidated those orders. He also found a strong case that the lender had standing following its merger with the predecessor company, under the statutory process and a Circuit Court Registrar’s substitution order.
The defendant separately challenged the manner of the eviction. She alleged that she was pushed, dragged from the house and injured; the lender gave a different account. The judge did not determine the conflicting allegations. He said they did not alter the fact that possession had been taken, and made no finding on the defendant’s complaint about the eviction conduct.
The court found a strong case that the sheriff had validly executed the possession order, the lender was entitled to possession, and the woman remained a trespasser. It concluded damages would not be an adequate remedy, noting that she was an undischarged bankrupt and that further delay would be contrary to the interests of justice. The judge said the balance of convenience favoured the orders sought and stated that the court would make the appropriate orders. The judgment does not set out the precise wording or terms of those orders.