The High Court has found Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC entitled to an order for possession of a mortgaged property in County Tipperary, after rejecting a borrower’s challenges to the transfer of the loan and charge, securitisation and the original possession proceedings.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan delivered judgment on 2 October 2026 in a rehearing of an appeal under section 37 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936. The appeal was brought by the first defendant against a Circuit Court order made on 22 June 2023. The second defendant did not actively pursue an appeal.
The Circuit Court had ordered possession of the property, stayed execution for six months and made a costs order. The High Court was required to decide afresh whether the lender was entitled to possession on the evidence before it. It concluded Mars, now the registered owner of the mortgage charge, had proved ownership of the charge and that the right to possession had arisen through default.
The judgment records that Start Mortgages Limited advanced a €100,000 loan in 2005, secured by a registered charge over the defendants’ home. The borrowers fell into arrears, and the last recorded payment was made in November 2013. The property was their principal private residence. The court said the loan, mortgage, arrears and default were not materially disputed.
Start transferred the loan and security to Mars in May 2024. Mars was registered as owner of the charge and joined the appeal as a co-plaintiff in January 2025. The first defendant argued that redactions in the transfer documents left uncertainty about beneficial owners and whether Mars was merely a trustee or servicer. The judge held that registered ownership of the charge was sufficient for the possession claim and that the transfer documents also adequately established the assignment.
The first defendant’s affidavits raised alleged tracker-mortgage overcharging, delay and a procedural objection that the original grounding affidavit was sworn before the Civil Bill issued. The overcharging allegations were not pursued at the hearing. The judge said they concerned the amount owed and did not undermine the charge or the right to possession. She found no defence arising from the delay or the timing of the affidavit, and no basis for a plenary hearing.
The court also considered its own obligation to examine consumer-contract terms and said it had identified no term that appeared potentially unfair. It concluded Mars was entitled to possession. The judge did not settle the final form of the order: she said the parties would be heard on that and consequential matters, with the proceedings to be listed for mention 14 days after electronic delivery of the judgment.