The High Court has refused Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC’s application for summary possession of a home at 79 Sandymount Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin 4, after finding that the evidence did not establish an intelligible and complete chain of title to the mortgage.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan said the ruling did not find that Pepper lacked title. The court could not determine from the affidavit evidence whether Pepper had acquired the legal rights needed to enforce the debt and security. The judge adjourned the matter for a plenary hearing before the High Court under Order 5B of the Circuit Court Rules.
The case is a de novo appeal by Cathal Mallon from a Circuit Court possession order made on 16 October 2025. That order had granted possession to Pepper and stayed execution for 18 months. The High Court heard the appeal on 18 June 2026 and delivered judgment on 2 October.
Mallon borrowed €1.15 million from Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd in February 2005, secured by a mortgage over the property. Pepper said the loan and mortgage were transferred through Bank of Scotland plc and Tanager before reaching Pepper. Mallon disputed the transfers and argued, among other things, that the debt had been discharged through earlier settlement or property sales. Those arguments were not finally decided.
The judge found that the mortgage document and evidence of arrears could support the existence of the loan, security and default. Mallon’s earlier engagement with Tanager, including repayment discussions and payments, also supported an inference that he recognised continuing mortgage indebtedness. But those matters did not resolve the central issue of Pepper’s entitlement to enforce.
Key transfer documents were heavily redacted or relied on other documents that had not been produced. The court could not determine what assets were included in the transfer to Tanager, or whether Pepper acquired legal title, equitable title, servicing rights, or another interest. The judge also noted a mismatch between a transfer date in notification correspondence and the dates on the transfer documents, and the absence of a Bank of Scotland “goodbye” letter.
The court said the gaps might be addressed with further evidence at a plenary hearing. It directed that the parties be heard on a timetable for pleadings, discovery and other case-management matters. The ruling refused possession on a summary basis; it did not determine the ultimate ownership of the mortgage or whether Mallon’s settlement and repayment claims would succeed.