Judgment: 2026-01-16 · Court archive

High Court grants possession of four Galway properties but stays enforcement pending owner's separate claim

High Court · [2026] IEHC 17

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Start Mortgages
  • Mars Capital Finance Ireland
  • John Healy
  • Permanent TSB
  • Mr Justice Conor Dignam
What

High Court grants possession of four Galway properties but stays enforcement pending owner's separate claim

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Galway
  • High Court
  • United Kingdom
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Conor Dignam rejected those arguments as defences to possession. The court held that the lenders were entitled to rely on their security despite the bankruptcy and had confirmed they would not pursue any shortfall after the properties were realised.

The High Court has granted lenders possession of four Galway properties owned by John Healy, but has postponed enforcement while a separate claim brought by Healy is determined.

Permanent TSB advanced Healy €1 million in March 2008, secured by a registered mortgage over the four properties. After repayment defaults, a rent receiver was appointed in 2012. Healy was declared bankrupt in the United Kingdom in July 2013 and discharged a year later.

Permanent TSB did not prove its debt in the bankruptcy and instead remained outside the process as a secured creditor. It later demanded repayment of €1,125,669.38 and vacant possession in early 2018 before commencing possession proceedings that August. Start Mortgages subsequently acquired the loan, and Mars Capital Finance Ireland was later joined as a plaintiff.

Healy argued that his bankruptcy had discharged the debt, that rights in the properties had later revested in him and that he had acquired an equitable interest after returning to Ireland, restoring the properties and resuming monthly payments of €1,200.

Mr Justice Conor Dignam rejected those arguments as defences to possession. The court held that the lenders were entitled to rely on their security despite the bankruptcy and had confirmed they would not pursue any shortfall after the properties were realised.

Healy also failed to establish a credible basis for saying the properties had revested in him under UK insolvency law. The operation of foreign law required evidence, and none had been produced. His estoppel argument also failed because the lenders had already demanded possession and commenced proceedings before Healy returned to the properties and carried out works.

The court therefore granted possession of all four properties.

However, enforcement was stayed pending Healy's separate plenary proceedings. Those proceedings may determine whether he has money claims relating to mortgage payments made since November 2021, repair expenditure or any uplift in property values. The lenders may apply to lift the stay if those proceedings are not pursued expeditiously.

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