Judgment: 2024-12-18 · Court archive

High Court substitutes Mars Capital in appeal over Foxrock property possession order

The court allowed the lender’s procedural application, while leaving substantive issues for the possession appeal or any later enforcement stage.

High Court · [2024] IEHC 727

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland)
  • Bank of Scotland PLC (Plaintiff)
  • Pat O’Connor
  • Joan O’Connor (Defendant)
  • Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC
  • Tanager Ltd
What

The court allowed the lender’s procedural application, while leaving substantive issues for the possession appeal or any later enforcement stage.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Meridian
  • Foxrock
  • Dublin 18
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 12 February 2014

    The proceedings began with a loan made by Bank of Scotland PLC to Pat O’Connor and Joan O’Connor in 2007. The defendants later granted a mortgage over the property known as Meridian, Hainault Road, Foxrock. A Circuit Court possession order was made in favour of Bank of Scotland on 12 February 2014. The second-named defendant appealed; the judgment says she was the only defendant to lodge an appeal.

  • 28 July 2023; 19 October 2023

    The loan and security interests were subsequently transferred through Tanager Ltd and Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC. Mars Capital applied to replace Pepper as plaintiff, relying on a global deed of transfer dated 28 July 2023 and an Irish law deed of conveyance and assignment dated 19 October 2023. Its evidence included affidavits from manager Glen Hogan and letters notifying the second-named defendant of the transfer.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court substituted Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC as first-named plaintiff in an appeal concerning a possession order for a property in Foxrock, Dublin 18. Mr Justice Barr made the order on 18 December 2024 after finding that affidavit evidence supported a transfer to Mars Capital of the former plaintiff’s interest in the loan and mortgage security.

The High Court substituted Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC as first-named plaintiff in an appeal concerning a possession order for a property in Foxrock, Dublin 18. Mr Justice Barr made the order on 18 December 2024 after finding that affidavit evidence supported a transfer to Mars Capital of the former plaintiff’s interest in the loan and mortgage security.

The proceedings began with a loan made by Bank of Scotland PLC to Pat O’Connor and Joan O’Connor in 2007. The defendants later granted a mortgage over the property known as Meridian, Hainault Road, Foxrock. A Circuit Court possession order was made in favour of Bank of Scotland on 12 February 2014. The second-named defendant appealed; the judgment says she was the only defendant to lodge an appeal.

The loan and security interests were subsequently transferred through Tanager Ltd and Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC. Mars Capital applied to replace Pepper as plaintiff, relying on a global deed of transfer dated 28 July 2023 and an Irish law deed of conveyance and assignment dated 19 October 2023. Its evidence included affidavits from manager Glen Hogan and letters notifying the second-named defendant of the transfer.

The second-named defendant opposed the application. She said she had not consented to the transfer and asserted that she could claim damages over alleged data-protection, consumer-protection and other rights breaches. She also sought a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The judge concluded that it was in the interests of justice to substitute Mars Capital, having regard to the evidence of the transfer. He refused the requested CJEU referral, finding no question of European law arose for determination on this application. He said the order did not decide substantive issues that might arise at the appeal or, if relevant, at enforcement. The judgment also records that the alleged data-protection claim was not part of the Circuit Court pleadings and was not among the issues to be determined on the appeal. The possession appeal itself was not decided by this application.

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