The High Court has dismissed Sean and Bernadette Fox’s appeal against an order giving Permanent TSB possession of their family home at 2 Glenlyon Grove, Knocklyon, Dublin 16. The court affirmed the Circuit Court order but said it would hear further submissions on whether to stay the order or its execution.
The appeal concerned a €270,000 home loan advanced in 2006 and secured by a mortgage over the property. The lender said the borrowers had stopped making repayments in October 2014. Its evidence included a letter calling for repayment of the outstanding debt and a later letter calling in the loan. The judge found that the August 2014 letter, considered alongside the parties’ earlier engagement, established default under the mortgage terms.
The Foxes said unemployment and ill health had affected their ability to pay. Sean Fox was made redundant in 2010, and the couple had six forbearance arrangements between 2011 and 2013, which the lender did not dispute they had honoured. They said they resumed payments in September 2014, increasing them to €500 a month in January 2015, but could not afford more. They also sought a further arrangement and asked to explore the Mortgage to Rent scheme. The lender said the property did not qualify for that scheme and that the borrowers’ financial statements did not support a sustainable alternative repayment arrangement.
On appeal, the defendants raised arguments about the mortgage intermediary’s compliance with consumer protection requirements, the lender’s assessment of their ability to repay, alleged unfair contract terms, and whether the lender had proved default. The judge found no arguable basis to refuse possession on those grounds. She said the borrowers had not identified specific breaches or shown that the mortgage terms caused their later inability to pay. The court also rejected contributory negligence as a defence in the circumstances of the possession proceedings.
The judge expressed sympathy for the couple’s predicament but concluded that the lender had made out its case. The appeal was dismissed and the Circuit Court order affirmed. The judgment did not decide whether a stay would be granted; that issue was left for further submissions.