The Supreme Court has dismissed Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC’s appeal over contempt proceedings against people who had occupied two Dublin properties, affirming the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside orders against them.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2023, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said Pepper had not personally served the occupants with the original court order bearing a warning that disobedience could lead to imprisonment, or with the motion seeking their attachment and committal. No order for substituted service had been made. The Court held those service failures fatal to the contempt application.
Pepper had begun proceedings in October 2020 against “persons unknown” seeking possession of 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin 7, and 31 Richmond Avenue, Dublin 3. The High Court granted an interlocutory order in November 2020 requiring occupants to surrender possession, subject to a stay. After Pepper sought contempt orders, the High Court found the occupants in contempt. The Court of Appeal set those orders aside in July 2022, citing several procedural deficiencies.
The Supreme Court agreed that the contempt application could not succeed because the required papers had not been personally served, but gave narrower reasons than the Court of Appeal. It held that proceedings against persons unknown are within the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, though their use should remain exceptional. In this case, Pepper was not faulted for initially using that procedure, but the case was described as marginal. Once the occupants’ names became known, the proceedings should have been amended to identify them.
The Court also rejected the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of a January 2021 stay. It ruled that the extended stay applied only to the two occupants who had sought it, not to all occupants. The Supreme Court said the stay order therefore did not have to be served on the others.
The properties had been sold in February 2022, and Pepper sought no further relief against the former occupants. The Court nevertheless heard the appeal because the legal questions were important and earlier rulings could affect other cases. It dismissed Pepper’s appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision, while relying on the service failures rather than all of that court’s reasoning.