The High Court refused Cabot Financial (Ireland) Ltd leave to execute a 2010 judgment against Niall O’Meachair, finding that it had not explained the long period of inactivity by itself or the original judgment creditor, ACC Bank plc.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Denis McDonald on 22 February 2022, concerned an application under Order 42, rule 24 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Because more than six years had passed since the judgment, Cabot needed the court’s permission before taking steps to execute it. The judgment against O’Meachair was for €271,637.31 plus six-day costs.
Cabot said it wanted permission to pursue well-charging proceedings against O’Meachair’s lands. The court said the applicant had to provide some explanation for the delay. Although the threshold was not high, it still had to be met. The court also noted that an assignee of a judgment debt was in no better position than the original creditor when explaining the delay.
Cabot relied on the earlier realisation of a property interest, O’Meachair’s bankruptcy and the transfer of the debt between creditors. A receiver sold a property at Sheeaune, Westport, in 2015 for €50,000. After receivership and sale costs, the net return to ACC Bank was reported as €7,653. Cabot’s evidence said the debtor’s bankruptcy and the movement of the properties into and out of the Official Assignee’s ownership contributed to the delay.
The judge held that these matters did not explain why enforcement against the properties had not been pursued. A secured creditor could enforce security despite a debtor’s bankruptcy, and the earlier registered charge over one property did not prevent an application for a well-charging order and sale. The transfer of the debt also did not explain the inactivity.
The court therefore refused Cabot leave to execute the judgment against O’Meachair. It did not decide whether O’Meachair had suffered prejudice, saying that issue arose only if a good reason for the delay had first been given. The judge also declined to express a view on the potential relevance of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court’s view that O’Meachair should recover his out-of-pocket expenses was provisional. It listed the matter for 24 March 2022 so the parties could make submissions on costs or notify the court of an agreement.