The High Court has granted KBC Bank Ireland Plc leave to issue an execution order to recover possession of two Dublin properties, following a previous possession order made in 2008. The ruling does not itself record that possession was recovered or determine the rights of the people living in the properties.
The application was brought under Order 42, rule 24 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which applies where six years have elapsed since a judgment or order, among other circumstances. Ms Justice Costello also ordered that KBC Bank Ireland Plc be substituted for IIB Home Loans Ltd in the case title, for clarity and legal certainty.
The original possession order covered 31 Richmond Avenue, Fairview, Dublin 3, and 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin. The defendant appealed. The Supreme Court heard the appeal in 2014 and dismissed it, affirming the High Court order. In 2015, the plaintiff obtained leave to issue an execution order, which was sent to the Dublin sheriff. Execution was put on hold after the plaintiff raised concerns about the practical and human impact on occupants.
The judgment said 21 Little Mary Street was occupied by an organisation and three residential tenants, while 31 Richmond Avenue was divided into seven residential units, also occupied. The defendant received rent from both properties, which was not paid to the plaintiff. The judgment recorded that €2,068,765.17 was due as of 30 January 2018 and that the last loan payment had been made in February 2008.
The defendant opposed the renewed application on several grounds, including that the possession order had not been transferred to KBC, that the plaintiff had not complied with a rule concerning people in possession of land, and that delay should prevent further execution. He also raised concerns about disclosure of loan information and the transfer of the loans without his consent.
The judge rejected those arguments. She found that the 2009 statutory transfer scheme and section 41 of the Central Bank Act 1971 meant KBC Bank Ireland Plc had become the plaintiff by operation of law while the appeal was pending; the possession order was later affirmed with KBC as plaintiff. She held that the rule concerning affidavits of service did not impose the asserted requirement at the execution stage, and that the six-year provision applied to the application. She also rejected the confidentiality and consent arguments, referring to the mortgage terms and the Minister for Finance’s approval of the transfer scheme.
On delay, the judge noted that the first execution order had been issued promptly after the 2014 appeal decision, but execution was held back because of the circumstances at the properties. She found no unreasonable delay in the plaintiff’s conduct and considered that the defendant had continued to use the properties and receive rents without making loan payments. She therefore exercised her discretion to grant leave for a further execution order pursuant to the 2008 possession order.