The High Court has refused an application by Denise Peters to set aside an order approving the private sale of a property known as Atlantis for €265,000. Mr Justice Cregan held that the earlier order authorising sale of the property remained final and that the later hearings concerned its enforcement.
Irish Life and Permanent plc, trading as Permanent TSB, advanced a residential mortgage loan of about €500,000 to Garreth (also known as Gary) Peters in 2004, secured over three properties. The bank later alleged that two Drogheda properties were sold in breach of the mortgage terms and that their proceeds were not used to reduce the loan. Those allegations were contested by Mr Peters and were not at issue in this application.
In July 2010, after hearing both defendants, the High Court declared €571,398.67 well charged on Atlantis and ordered that the debt be enforced by sale, subject to a seven-month period to repay. Ms Peters did not appeal that order. The judge said it was final and conclusive for the purpose of her current application.
The Examiner later approved an auction process. The property was withdrawn from auction after the highest bid, €240,000, fell below the €335,000 reserve. The bank then obtained a High Court order on 2 September 2013 approving a private treaty sale to Michael O’Hehir for €265,000 and deeming service of the motion sufficient. The bank had sent the papers to Ms Peters by registered post, but they were returned uncollected. The judge noted that the court was not told of the return when it made the order.
Ms Peters said she had not known about the enforcement applications and argued she should have been able to address the property’s value and the auction’s marketing. She also relied on the 2007 judicial separation settlement, under which her former husband had agreed to transfer Atlantis to her free of mortgages and encumbrances. The judge found the bank’s consent was required for that transfer and had not been obtained. He said any complaint about her former husband’s failure to release the mortgage was a matter between them.
The judge considered that Ms Peters had now been heard on the issues raised in the later proceedings and found no prejudice that justified setting aside the sale approval. He noted there was no evidence of a higher offer, and that a valuation exhibited by Ms Peters put the property at up to €380,000. He refused her application. The judgment addressed only whether to set aside the 2 September 2013 order; it did not determine the separate motion to appoint a trustee to execute the transfer.