The Court of Appeal has dismissed Anne and Gerry Burns’s appeal over the sale and registration of a property in County Leitrim. The court held that their request to stop registration had become moot after IPPCove Ltd was registered as owner, and found no error in the High Court’s refusal of an injunction or its decision to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process.
The appeal concerned orders made by the High Court on 20 November 2024. The Burns sought to stop registration of a transfer to IPPCove, pending trial. The High Court refused the injunction and struck out the proceedings. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael MacGrath, records that IPPCove was registered as full owner on 4 April 2025, and the charge held by BCM Global ASI Ltd was cancelled that day.
The couple claimed the property was their family home and challenged BCM Global’s authority to sell it, among other grounds. BCM Global was registered as owner of the mortgage charge. It transferred the property to IPPCove in March 2024 for €140,000. The contract for sale mistakenly named Everyday Finance DAC as vendor; the Court of Appeal agreed that the error had been addressed by the deed of transfer and did not undermine the transaction.
The court said the injunction could no longer be granted because registration was complete. It nevertheless considered the appeal against refusal of the injunction to address potential injustice and related issues. It found that the Burns had not shown a serious issue to be tried or established a basis for overturning the High Court judge’s exercise of discretion. The court also noted that mortgage repayments had not been made since 2010, that damages could be an adequate remedy, and that a previous unsuccessful attempt to stop the sale had not been appealed.
The court upheld the striking out of the proceedings. It found that the 2024 case repeated the central challenge made in earlier proceedings: whether BCM Global could sell the property. Although the later case included additional grounds and parties, the court said no good reason had been given for bringing a separate case rather than seeking to amend the earlier one.
The judgment also stated that statutory provisions governing mortgagee powers under the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 did not apply to this mortgage, which was created in 2004. The court dismissed the appeal. It gave the appellants 14 days to file written submissions disputing the respondents’ appeal costs; the respondents may reply within a further 14 days.