Judgment: 2025-10-21 · Court archive

High Court refuses to stop sale of derelict Moone property over €538,000 mortgage debt

High Court · [2025] IEHC 564

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Catherine Clarke
  • James Anderson
  • Mr Justice Cregan
What

High Court refuses to stop sale of derelict Moone property over €538,000 mortgage debt

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 3 December 2024

    Thomas and Catherine Clarke bought The Cottage in 2007 using a €400,000 loan from Leeds Building Society. Pepper Finance later acquired the loan and mortgage. By 3 December 2024, the outstanding balance was €538,231, including €134,436 in arrears, and Pepper appointed James Anderson as receiver.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 21 October 2025, Mr Justice Cregan rejected those arguments. He found that the mortgage terms expressly permitted appointment of a receiver and sale, that Pepper was registered as owner of the charge and that omission of the letter “F” from one folio reference did not invalidate the appointment.

By Ruth Mercer

The High Court has refused to stop the sale of a derelict investment property in Moone, County Kildare, after rejecting a series of challenges brought by its owners to the mortgage and receiver’s powers.

Thomas and Catherine Clarke bought The Cottage in 2007 using a €400,000 loan from Leeds Building Society. Pepper Finance later acquired the loan and mortgage. By 3 December 2024, the outstanding balance was €538,231, including €134,436 in arrears, and Pepper appointed James Anderson as receiver.

The Clarkes sought an interlocutory injunction preventing a sale. They argued, among other things, that Pepper lacked power to appoint a receiver, that the receiver had no power of sale, that the appointment referred to the wrong folio and that the property was landlocked.

In a judgment delivered on 21 October 2025, Mr Justice Cregan rejected those arguments. He found that the mortgage terms expressly permitted appointment of a receiver and sale, that Pepper was registered as owner of the charge and that omission of the letter “F” from one folio reference did not invalidate the appointment.

The judge also found that the property was not landlocked because it directly abutted the public road. However, the existing vehicular access appeared to cross neighbouring partnership land, and there was no proper entrance directly from the road.

The ruling therefore requires the receiver to make clear to prospective purchasers that the property is being sold without proper vehicular access and that planning permission will be needed for a new entrance.

The court also rejected allegations of trespass on adjoining partnership land as irrelevant to this injunction application because that land was owned by a separate party.

Mr Justice Cregan concluded that no fair issue had been raised, the balance of justice favoured refusal, damages would be adequate if the Clarkes later succeeded at trial, and their undertaking as to damages lacked substance. The judgment resolves the injunction application, not any final underlying damages claim.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review