The High Court dismissed David Jacob’s appeal against a Circuit Court order for possession of Park House, Bree, Enniscorthy, but varied the order so that possession would be in favour of Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC rather than Shoreline Residential DAC.
Mr Justice Barr found that Pepper Finance was entitled to possession under a mortgage securing a loan originally made by Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS). The judgment, delivered electronically on 26 August 2021, said the Circuit Court had made its order on 26 February 2019. The High Court declined to place a stay on the possession order. It gave the parties four weeks to make written submissions on the form of the final order, costs and any other matters.
The €390,000 loan was offered in August 2007, accepted by Jacob on 17 August and drawn down on 23 August. He executed a mortgage over the property on 23 January 2009. The court traced the loan and mortgage through transfers from INBS to Anglo Irish Bank, later renamed Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, then to Shoreline in 2014 and to Pepper Finance in April 2019. Pepper Finance was joined to the proceedings in March 2020.
The court accepted evidence that the account fell into arrears in or about 2011 and that the last payment, €540, was made on 28 June 2013. The balance was stated as €577,016.45 in January 2020. The court found Jacob remained indebted in a sum exceeding that figure. It also found that the lender had demanded repayment of the full loan in December 2015 and vacant possession in January 2016.
Jacob, who represented himself, argued that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction, that he had not received sufficient detail about the debt and interest, and that redactions in transfer documents impaired his defence. He also relied on an unanswered settlement offer, the lenders’ refusal to mediate, consumer regulations and an objection that the evidence was hearsay.
The High Court rejected those grounds. It found the Circuit Court had jurisdiction because the property was Jacob’s principal private residence and the mortgage pre-dated December 2009. The court said detailed interest calculations were not necessary to determine this possession application: it was enough to establish that money was due, the right to possession had arisen and the required demands had been made. It also found the redactions concerned other borrowers’ loans and did not impair Jacob’s defence. The court said the lenders were not obliged to accept or answer his offer, and refusal to mediate did not prevent them obtaining relief. It relied on the loan and mortgage documents, which Jacob had not specifically challenged, in rejecting the hearsay objection.
The High Court’s ruling concerned possession, not a separate order for payment of a specified debt. The final form of the order and costs remained for later submissions.