Judgment: 2025-10-28 · Court archive

AIB possession case over Birdhill pub and family home sent to full trial

High Court · [2025] IEHC 610

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • The Dragon’s Head Limited
  • Denis Ryan
  • Ms Justice Nessa Cahill
What

AIB possession case over Birdhill pub and family home sent to full trial

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Birdhill
  • The Cooper's Bar
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

AIB’s attempt to obtain possession of a Birdhill property containing The Cooper's Bar and a family home will proceed to a full High Court hearing after the judge found that several potentially credible defences require further examination.

AIB’s attempt to obtain possession of a Birdhill property containing The Cooper's Bar and a family home will proceed to a full High Court hearing after the judge found that several potentially credible defences require further examination.

Ms Justice Nessa Cahill ruled on 28 October 2025 that the bank’s claim against The Dragon’s Head Limited could not fairly be determined through the shorter summary procedure.

The County Tipperary property is partly occupied as a licensed pub and partly as the home of company director Denis Ryan, his wife and their two adult daughters. A mortgage over the property was entered in July 2009. AIB later offered the company a €199,618 loan facility in December 2010, restructuring earlier lending.

AIB issued possession proceedings in October 2022. Its evidence stated that €350,701.27 was due when a grounding affidavit was sworn in September 2023.

The company opposed possession on several grounds. Mr Ryan said that in 2005 he and his wife had intended to repay existing AIB debt but were instead encouraged by bank representatives to invest in AIB's Belfry 5 investment product. He described that investment as an "absolute failure" and said a compensation claim remained ongoing.

AIB disputed that this could provide a set-off against its possession claim. However, the judge noted that the bank had not contradicted Mr Ryan's factual account by affidavit or cross-examined him. She found the issue sufficiently credible to require a full trial.

The court also found a flaw in AIB’s summary application because its summons did not clearly state the statutory basis for seeking possession, while its written submissions initially relied on legislation that the bank later accepted did not apply.

A further arguable issue concerned whether the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears could apply, given Mr Ryan’s longstanding residence in the property and his personal guarantee of the company debt.

The court did not decide whether any of these defences will ultimately succeed. The possession claim was remitted to plenary hearing, where fuller evidence and legal submissions can be considered.

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