The High Court has directed a full hearing of an appeal by Dwayne and Nicola Bedford against a Circuit Court possession order, finding that Mars Capital Finance DAC had not adequately established how the loans underlying its registered charges came to be transferred to it.
In a judgment delivered on 1 July 2024, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the case would be remitted to a plenary hearing before the High Court. The appeal was a rehearing of the Circuit Court’s 7 May 2019 order. The judge did not grant possession or find that the Bedfords had established a full defence.
Mars Capital was joined as a co-plaintiff after buying a loan book from EBS DAC in 2021. The Bedfords had borrowed from EBS Building Society and challenged Mars Capital’s entitlement to possession, saying the evidence did not sufficiently explain the transfers between the various EBS entities.
The judge was satisfied that the land register showed Mars Capital as owner of two charges over the property, and that a default event had occurred. The last payment before proceedings was a €30 part-payment on 5 September 2014; proceedings issued on 5 December 2014. But ownership of the charges alone did not prove that the particular loans were linked to them or that Mars Capital had acquired the relevant rights.
The judgment said there was insufficient evidence explaining how EBS Mortgage Finance obtained ownership of the loans from EBS Building Society or its successor, EBS Limited, before the loans were transferred through EBS DAC to Mars Capital. The court found the documents relating to the final transfer sufficiently explained, including the relevant redactions, but said that did not fill the earlier gap in the chain of title.
The judge also directed that the Bedfords be heard on their sworn allegation that the first named defendant’s signature on an acceptance letter was not genuine. She made no finding on that allegation. A separate argument that different pens were used was not supported by affidavit evidence, and the court said it would not establish that a signature was inauthentic without more evidence.
The Bedfords have not yet persuaded the court that they have a full defence. The parties were directed to exchange pleadings ahead of the plenary hearing. If the defendants pursue fraud allegations, they must provide detailed particulars in their written defence. The case was listed for case management, including directions on the pleadings.