Judgment: 2026-03-18 · Court archive

Court of Appeal dismisses Wexford couple's challenge over repossessed home

Court of Appeal · [2026] IECA 40

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC
  • Patrick Carty
  • Idena Carty
  • Start Mortgages
  • Mr Justice McDonald
What

Court of Appeal dismisses Wexford couple's challenge over repossessed home

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Newtown
  • High Court
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 26 January 2023

    An execution order was issued in November 2020 and renewed in May 2022. On 26 January 2023, a court messenger attended the property with the Wexford County Registrar and a representative of a bailiff company. The court heard that vacant possession was taken and handed over on behalf of Start. Patrick Carty later said he re-entered the property after finding the locks changed.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

An execution order was issued in November 2020 and renewed in May 2022. On 26 January 2023, a court messenger attended the property with the Wexford County Registrar and a representative of a bailiff company. The court heard that vacant possession was taken and handed over on behalf of Start. Patrick Carty later said he re-entered the property after finding the locks changed.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Patrick and Idena Carty against an injunction requiring them to leave a property at Newtown, Caim, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford.

The dispute followed a Circuit Court possession order made in December 2017 in favour of Permanent TSB. That order, which was not appealed, required the Cartys to give up possession after a three-month stay. The bank's interest was later transferred to Start Mortgages and subsequently to Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC.

An execution order was issued in November 2020 and renewed in May 2022. On 26 January 2023, a court messenger attended the property with the Wexford County Registrar and a representative of a bailiff company. The court heard that vacant possession was taken and handed over on behalf of Start. Patrick Carty later said he re-entered the property after finding the locks changed.

Start then began High Court proceedings seeking to have the Cartys leave the property again. Mars was later substituted as plaintiff, and Ms Justice Stack granted an interlocutory injunction in January 2025 directing the couple to vacate and restraining interference with Mars's rights.

On appeal, the Cartys challenged the execution process, including the renewal of the execution order and whether they should have received notice. Mr Justice McDonald held that the Circuit Court rules allowed renewal through the court office without notice where the underlying judgment remained in force. Evidence also showed that the required affidavit supporting renewal had been filed and that the court messenger had been properly authorised.

The court found no arguable basis for saying the execution was defective. It stressed that the underlying possession order was final, binding and unappealed, and that parties cannot retake possession themselves after lawful execution of a court order.

The appeal was dismissed. Mars was presumptively entitled to its appeal costs, subject to further written submissions from the Cartys if they wished to argue for a different costs order.

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