The High Court has granted the Governor and Company of Bank of Ireland leave to issue execution on a 2011 order for possession of the Hickeys’ family home, finding the bank had explained its delay and that the delay had not caused them prejudice.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the ruling on 27 June 2022. The application, made under Order 42, rule 24 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, sought permission to enforce an order made on 19 December 2011 and perfected on 9 January 2012. The original order covered the family home and a public house called The Cush; the application concerned only the family home, as the public house had been sold and its proceeds applied to the first defendant’s debt.
The bank said it had treated taking and selling the family home as a last resort while it pursued other security. A receiver was appointed over The Cush in January 2013. After the pub was damaged by fire, the bank recovered €107,321.92 net from insurance proceeds and the sale. The bank also pursued a property in Portugal and obtained a separate judgment against both defendants for €2,164,285.89 in June 2013. The first defendant stated that the Portugal property was worth about €150,000.
The bank invited debt-resolution proposals in 2013 and 2014. In September 2018, the first defendant offered €100,000, funded through family help and asset sales, in payments over about a year. The bank rejected that proposal and said any resolution would have to involve selling the family home. In September 2019, the bank proposed accepting €400,000 within 60 days or €450,000 within two years as final settlement. The first defendant later wrote that his wife would not agree to the proposal and that he would seek legal advice. No formal settlement was reached.
The court said the discussions and the first defendant’s requests that the bank not proceed before he made proposals provided a good reason for the delay. It also attributed the period after the motion was issued in March 2020 to pandemic-related restrictions and a mortgage-list moratorium. The court accepted that the defendants faced serious health difficulties and risked losing their home, but held that the asserted prejudice had not been caused by the bank’s delay. It noted that the bank had not led them to believe the order was abandoned.
The court granted leave to issue execution in respect of the 2011 possession order. It did not make a final costs order: any party seeking a different order could address the court on 18 July 2022.