The High Court has affirmed a Circuit Court order giving Permanent TSB possession of a mortgaged property in Walkinstown, Dublin, after rejecting the borrower’s appeal grounds as having no merit.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered the judgment on 25 January 2019, following a hearing on 17 and 18 January. The defendant, Liam Rabbitt, represented himself. The appeal concerned a Circuit Court order made on 18 January 2017, which had granted possession subject to a stay of about three months. The High Court’s decision affirmed that order; the judgment does not specify a new possession date or make a separate order about the stay.
The proceedings began in the Circuit Court in January 2015. The judgment says Permanent TSB, formerly Irish Life and Permanent plc, agreed in April 2005 to provide Mr Rabbitt with a 30-year loan. It advanced €350,000, secured by a mortgage over No. 3 Moeran Road, Walkinstown, executed in June 2005. The court said Mr Rabbitt had independent legal advice concerning the loan and mortgage.
The judgment records missed repayments from May 2008 and says no repayment had been made since 4 October 2012. By November 2014, the amount outstanding was about €431,491.90, including €129,936 in arrears. At the appeal hearing, arrears exceeded €185,000, up from about €131,882, according to the judgment.
Mr Rabbitt’s grounds included complaints about the fairness of the Circuit Court hearing, court rules, affidavits, jurisdiction, access to original documents, data protection and allegedly unfair mortgage terms. The High Court found no credible evidence supporting the fair-hearing complaint and rejected the other grounds. It said the Circuit Court had jurisdiction under section 3 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013, and that the defendant had not identified any particular mortgage term said to be unfair.
The judge also noted that Mr Rabbitt had not denied borrowing the money, using it to purchase the secured property or making no repayments since October 2012. In affirming the possession order, the court cited the absence of repayment and meaningful engagement with the lender, the continued pursuit of defences it considered meritless, and the growth in arrears. It also said a letter from an accountants’ firm relied on by the defendant contained incorrect and misleading information.