High Court dismisses appeal for possession under Section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 where defendant does not oppose.

APPROVED

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 577

Record No. 2024/257CA

BETWEEN/

PEPPER FINANCE CORPORATION (IRELAND)

DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY

PLAINTIFF

AND

SEAN MOYNIHAN

FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT

AND

ESTHER HALPIN

SECOND NAMED DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on the 21st day of October 2025

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary

1. This is an appeal from the decision of Her Honour Judge Fiona O’Sullivan in the Circuit Court (Dublin Circuit) dated 6th November 2024, which ordered that the Plaintiff (“Pepper”) recover from the Defendants, possession of the property in Folio 57406F County Dublin and located at 106 Walkinstown Avenue, Walkinstown, Dublin 12 (“the subject property”). (The first named Defendant, Mr. Moynihan, as a litigant-in-person, issued the Notice of Appeal dated 8th November 2024).

2. By virtue of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, the appeal is in the form of a re-hearing.

3. Therefore, as was the position in the Circuit Court, Pepper remains the moving party in the proceedings and bears the onus of establishing the proofs necessary to ground the application for possession (see generally the decision of the High Court (Simons J.) in Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC t/a Pepper Asset Servicing v Moynihan [2024] IEHC 625).

4. Two aspects of these proceedings bear mention at the outset. First, the second named Defendant, Ms. Halpin, was the sole occupant of the property. Second, Ms. Halpin does not oppose Pepper’s application (and as I understand matters, Ms. Halpin adopted a similar position before the Circuit Court) and in fact supports their application for possession.

Section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964

5. Section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 provides for a summary procedure whereby the owner of a registered charge can apply for an order for possession of property, as follows:

“(7) When repayment of the principal money secured by the instrument of charge has become due, the registered owner of the charge or his personal representative may apply to the court in a summary manner for possession of the land or any part of the land, and on the application the court may, if it so thinks proper, order possession of the land or the said part thereof to be delivered to the applicant, and the applicant, upon obtaining possession of the land or the said part thereof, shall be deemed to be a mortgagee in possession.”

6. As these proceedings concern an application for possession of registered land my jurisdiction is informed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Cody [2021] IESC 26; [2021] 2 I.R. 381, where Baker J. held inter alia that the owner of a charge who seeks to obtain possession pursuant to section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 (as applied by section 1 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013) has to prove that the plaintiff is the owner of the charge and that the right to seek possession has arisen and is exercisable on the facts.

7. In Start Mortgages v Ryan [2021] IEHC 719, Woulfe J., sitting as a judge of the High Court, also in an appeal from the Circuit Court, applied the judgment in Cody and stated as follows, at paragraph 21 of his judgment, “the summary process is facilitated by the conclusiveness of the Register as proof that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the charge and this is a matter of the production of the Folio, and, as the Register is by reason of s.31 of the 1964 Act conclusive of ownership, sufficient evidence is shown by that means: see the discussion in the Court of Appeal judgment in Tanager DAC v Kane [2018] IECA 352. That judgment held that the correctness of the Register cannot be challenged by way of defence in summary possession proceedings, and that a Court hearing an application for possession pursuant to s.62(7) of the 1964 Act is entitled to grant an order at the suit of the registered owner of the charge, or his or her personal representative, provided it is satisfied that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the charge and the right to possession has arisen and become exercisable.”

Position of the Defendants

8. The second named Defendant, Ms. Halpin, had sworn an Affidavit on 8th September 2023, and at the hearing of the proceedings before me, she indicated that she was not opposing (and was supporting) Pepper’s application for possession of the subject property.

9. Mr. Moynihan, therefore, is the only one of the two defendants who opposes Pepper’s application for possession of the subject property.

10. In his Affidavit sworn on 4th December 2023, Mr. Moynihan raised a number of matters.

11. He referred to maxims that he who comes to equity must have equity and that the obligation to come with clean hands lay with the Plaintiff.

12. The substance of his defence to the application was to seek to question, by way of Affidavit and submission, Pepper’s ownership of the Mortgage and Charge over the subject lands and he contended that the Plaintiff had not proved that they were the owners of the mortgage and/or entitled to a possession order.

13. Mr. Moynihan asserted, for example, by reference to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, that Pepper was not the mortgagee but was the servicing agent only. He stated that the credit purchaser as the owner was the only entity entitled to be the Plaintiff in these possession proceedings. He stated that Pepper was making an application under s. 62(7) of the Registration of Titles Act 1964 and seeking a possession order, not to pay themselves, but to give it to an unrelated third party and receive a fee for doing so. He stated that Pepper was no more than a collection agent for an unrelated third party and that it had changed ‘the legal infrastructure’ of their mortgage from them being consumers to being under a commercial contract between the Plaintiff and the purchaser. He again asserted that Pepper had no beneficial interest in the property other than receiving a fee for a possession order. He stated that the Plaintiff was claiming legal title and had not shown proofs to the court. He inter alia alleged that the Plaintiff had not registered a charge in their name and that “GE” were still the registered owners of the charge and a legal notice did not constitute a charge.

14. Mr Moynihan made an unspecified reference to Ms. Loftus “saying” that on 28th September 2012, Pepper Netherlands Holding Cooperatie UA purchased the entire share capital of the Plaintiff and that subsequent to a change in ownership on 28th September 2012, the Plaintiff sold the beneficial interest in its mortgage book, including the Defendants’ loan account to Windmill Funding Ltd had sold it on to a company called Legado. In her Affidavit sworn on 5th March 2024 (referred to in the next section of the judgment), Caroline Loftus, Senior Operations Manager at Pepper, avers by way of specific reference to Mr. Moynihan’s unspecified reference (at paragraph 20 of his Affidavit) that it is “not clear what he is referring to, as your deponent has not given evidence previously in these proceedings and the Plaintiff can only infer that this paragraph, if not indeed the entire Affidavit has been copied and pasted into his affidavit”.

(Separately, in the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Noonan J., Haughton J. and Allen J.) in Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Moloney [2023] IECA 161, Allen

J. deals with similar matters at paragraphs 22 to 28 of his judgment).

15. In his Affidavit of 12th July 2023, Mr. Moynihan again asserted that the Plaintiff had not conclusively proven that it owned the Charge and he further contended that it had failed to establish the necessary proofs under section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 and referred to the decision of the High Court (Simons J.) in Start Mortgages DAC v Ramseyer & Anor [2024] IEHC 329 and the decision of the High Court (Binchy J.) in Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Jenkins & Anor [2018] IEHC 485.

Response on behalf of Pepper

16. Pepper’s main response, in the Affidavit of Caroline Loftus, Senior Operations Manager at Pepper, sworn on 5th March 2024 was to refer to, and rely upon, the Civil Bill for Possession of the subject property date stamped 10th December 2022 and grounded on the Affidavit of Shane O’Connell, Head of Customer Solutions (Residential) Mortgages at Pepper which was sworn on 6th December 2022 (and which is referred to later in this judgment).

17. As previously mentioned, by way of an Affidavit sworn on 5th March 2024, Caroline Loftus, Senior Operations Manager at Pepper provided an update on the loan account, the subject of the within proceedings, and responds to the respective affidavits of the Defendants dated 8th September 2023 from the second named defendant and the more recent affidavit of Mr Sean Moynihan dated 4th December 2023.

18. Ms. Loftus, in her Affidavit, states that the sum of money offered by the Plaintiff and accepted, and subsequently drawn down, by the Defendants was €300,000. She acknowledges the personal circumstances of the second named Defendant and her bona fides in attempting to engage with Pepper. Ms. Loftus acknowledges that an offer was made by the son of the Defendants and his partner to purchase their property for €275,000 but that, regrettably, after very careful consideration of the offer made and without prejudice to the very considerable legal obstacles in accepting the offer, it was refused as it was significantly lower than the current market value of the property.

19. In further reply to the Affidavit of Mr. Moynihan, Ms. Loftus points out that it is important to note that Mr. Moynihan does not currently make any repayments on the loan account, the subject matter of the proceedings. She says that as set out at paragraph

32 of the Affidavit of Shane O’Connell dated 6th December 2022, Pepper is the successor in title to GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans Ltd and she refers to paragraph 32 of Mr. O'Connell’s affidavit of 6th December 2022 where he avers that on 11th October 2012, GE Capital Woodchester Homes Ltd changed its name to Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Ltd and that Pepper was designated as a designated activity company pursuant to the Companies Act 2014.

20. Ms. Loftus in her affidavit sworn on 5th March 2024 states that these proceedings are not one of the many cases before the courts where there has been a loan sale to a third party but rather, the original loan owner and charge holder has simply changed its name. She states that consequently there has been no amendment or change of ownership of the charge registered as a burden at entry 3 of part 3 of the Folio which has remained in the name of Pepper’s original designation and consequently, Mr. Moynihan’s claims to the contrary in relation to the registration of the charge are not correct and he is mistaken. She states that it is not accepted that the Plaintiff does not own the loans, or the security thereby secured, nor is the Plaintiff seeking equitable relief. She rejects the assertion made by Mr. Moynihan that the Plaintiff is concealing anything and describes this as a vague and scandalous allegation made by Mr. Moynihan.

21. Ms. Loftus says that Pepper is a stranger to the unclear and unspecified allegations made by Mr. Moynihan and rejects their accuracy or relevance.

22. Ms. Loftus states that as of 28th February 2024 the current arrears on the account were €418,169.25 and the total outstanding balance was €684,969.71 with a current contractual monthly repayment figure of €2,481.460. At the time of the swearing of that Affidavit on 5th March 2024, Ms. Loftus says and believes that the last payment made to the account was on 21st February 2024 in the sum of €200.

23. Ms. Loftus states that whereas Ms. Halpin’s engagement was commendable given the very large indebtedness of the Defendants, the lack of any co-operation from Mr. Moynihan and the personal circumstances of the second named Defendant, there was no prospect of any resolution of this debt without recourse to the orders sought by the Plaintiff.

24. Ms. Loftus swore a further Affidavit on 15th October 2024 which addressed Mr. Moynihan’s assertions. Ms. Loftus stated that the Plaintiff was the legal title owner of the Mortgage and Charge the subject of these proceedings. She confirms, for example, that no alleged Global Deed of Transfer exists as this particular mortgage and loan were never transferred, as the loan originated with the current Plaintiff (as the original mortgagee).

25. Ms Loftus states that as of 11th October 2024, the total sum of €718,115.54 remained due and owing by the Defendants to the Plaintiff after all just credits and allowances, which said sum included the arrears of €452,911.02. She stated that the last payment made was for the sum of €200 on 8th October 2024.

26. In submissions (dated 6th May 2025) and on affidavit, Mr. Moynihan repeatedly questioned Pepper’s legal ownership of the mortgage and charge and whether Pepper, for example, was the mortgagee.

DISCUSSION & DECISION

27. I am satisfied, for the following reasons, that Pepper has satisfied the requirements of section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 and the principles which apply to an application made under those provisions as set out in the case law, including inter alia, the decision of the Supreme Court (Baker J.) in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Cody [2021] IESC 26, [2021] 2 I.R. 381 and, as mortgagee, Pepper has proven its ownership of the loan and security in this case.

28. As set out hereunder, Pepper has established that: (i) the relevant monies were secured by way of mortgage; (ii) there has there been default, resulting in the secured monies having become due; and (iii) the application was made bona fide with a view to realising the security.

29. These three matters are, for example, how the High Court (Heslin J.) interpreted the requirements of Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Cody at paragraph 18 of his judgment in Start Mortgages DAC v Connaughton & Connaughton [2023] IEHC 364. Further, it would appear that some similar arguments now raised by the Mr. Moynihan were addressed in the judgment of Allen J. for the Court of Appeal (Noonan J., Haughton J. and Allen J.) in Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Moloney [2023] IECA

161 and by the High Court (Bolger J.) in Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Egan [2025] IECA 16.

Civil Bill for Possession

30. The Civil Bill for Possession dated 10th December 2022 inter alia claims an order for possession of the subject property pursuant to section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 and pursuant to section 1(2) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 and Order 5B of the Rules of the Circuit Court, and such further or other relief as may be necessary or appropriate and the costs of the proceedings.

31. The Civil Bill for possession pleads inter alia that the proceedings are brought in the Circuit Court pursuant to s. 3 of Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 and that the proceedings are brought by a mortgagee seeking an order for possession of land which is the principal private residence of the mortgagor of the land concerned, or a person without whose consent a conveyance of that land would be void by reason if (i) the Family Home Protection Act 1976, or (ii) the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, and the mortgage concerned was created prior to 1st December 2009.

32. The Civil Bill for Possession issued and served in this application complied with the provisions of Order 5B of the Circuit Court Rules and the Procedure in certain Actions for Possession or Sale of Land and Actions for and Well-charging Relief.

33. The Civil Bill is grounded on the Affidavit of Shane O’Connell, Head of Customer Solutions (Residential) Mortgages at Pepper which was sworn on 6th December 2022.

The subject property

34. The subject property is a residential property located at 106 Walkinstown Avenue, Walkinstown, Dublin 12. The property is described in the Deed of Mortgage and Charge dated 14th December 2007 between GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans Ltd of the one part and the defendants of the other part as “All That and Those the property known as 106 Walkinstown Avenue, Dublin 12 and being the property comprised in Folio 57406F of the Register of Freeholders County Dublin.”

35. The title to the property is registered in the Land Registry at Folio 57406F County Dublin. A true copy of the updated Folio 57406F (date of print being 25th November 2022) was exhibited in the Affidavit of Shane O’Connell, which grounded this application for possession and the Civil Bill for Possession dated 10th December 2022 with the stamp of the Circuit Court of 13th December 2022 endorsed on same. Part 3 – Burdens and Notices of Burdens of the true copy Folio 57406F recited at number 3, “09-JUL-2008 D2008DN034622M Charge for present and future advances repayable with interest. GE CAPITAL WOODCHESTER HOME LOANS LIMITED is the owner of this charge.”

36. Mr. O’Connell avers that to the best of his knowledge believes that at the date of the advance the property was a family home within the meaning of s. 2 of the Family Home Protection Act 1976 but was not a shared home within the meaning of s. 27 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Mr. O’Connell further verified that the subject property has a market value, within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, which does not exceed €3 million.

37. As stated, the property was occupied by the second named Defendant who submitted that she supported Pepper’s application for possession in these proceedings.

The security

38. A true copy of the Deed of Mortgage and Charge dated 14th December 2007 was exhibited by Mr. O’Connell in his Affidavit sworn on 6th December 2024 whereby the Defendants charged the subject property to secure payment of all sums then or thereafter due together with interest. Clauses 3.01 to 3.06 of the Deed of Mortgage and Charge dated 14th December 2007 sets out the covenants for payment. Clauses 5.01 to

5.07 sets out the mortgage/charge. Clauses 8 and 9 of the Mortgage provide express power to enter into possession and sell the property upon the default in payment of any monthly or periodic payment. Clause 8.02 (b) provides that the power of sale shall be exercisable without the restrictions of its exercise imposed by s. 20 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 and clause 11.01 of the Mortgage provides that s. 17 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 shall not apply to the subject mortgage.

39. Mr. O’Connell avers that he is advised by his solicitor that the subject property would be virtually unsaleable without vacant possession and that Pepper’s power of sale would be rendered ineffective unless vacant possession of the property was delivered up by the Defendants.

40. The schedule to the Deed of Mortgage and Charge dated 14th December 2007 confirms that both Defendants signed the said deed and that the borrowers were the Defendants. As referred to earlier, an examination of the copy Folio 57406F confirms that the charge was registered as a burden on the Folio on 9th July 2008. Mr. O’Connell avers that to the best of his knowledge and belief no prior consent to the giving of security was required for the purposes of s. 3 of the Family Home Protection Act 1976 and that further to the best of his belief no prior consent to the giving of security was required for the purposes of s. 28 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010.

Facility Agreement/Loan Agreement

41. Mr. O’Connell in his Affidavit dated 6th December 2022 exhibits a true copy the Facility Agreement, namely the amended letter of offer on mortgage loan dated 5th December 2007 with the application number set out and a letter of offer addressed to both Defendants Mr. Sean Moynihan and Ms. Esther Halpin.

42. In this amended letter of offer of mortgage loan dated 5th December 2007 between the Bank and the Defendants (the Facility Agreement), the Bank offered the Defendants inter alia advances and loans in the sum of €300,000 subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Facility Agreement which expressly required the repayment of the loan with interest. This Facility Agreement was signed by each of the Defendants on 6th December 2007 and the loan monies were drawn down by them on 13th December 2007.

Details of arrears/default

43. Mr. O’Connell in his Affidavit of 6th December 2022 avers that the Defendants have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the facilities made available on foot of the Facility Agreement and the Charge in that they have failed to make repayments of the sums due thereunder on the due dates in accordance with the terms of the Facility Agreement and the Charge.

44. Mr. O’Connell exhibits two separate letters sent to each of the Defendants dated 31st May 2022 in which it is stated:

“An event of default has occurred pursuant to the terms of your mortgage agreement as you have failed to make a payment(s) on the due date. Your account is now 178 payments in arrears. Your mortgage account is currently showing outstanding arrears and charges of €338,674.94. The mortgage arrears resolution process (MARP) no longer applies to this account. We now formally demand full payment of the entire balance due and owing by you on the above-mentioned mortgage account pursuant to the terms of your mortgage agreement.

The balance as at 30 May 2022 is €611,230.69 together with

continuing interest which is accruing at the daily rate.

Please note that if you do not pay in full the entire balance due and owing by you on the above-mentioned mortgage account of the sums herein demanded, within seven days from the date of this letter, we would be left with no option, but to pass your account to our external solicitors to commence repossession proceedings in Court.

Please note that should the secured property be repossessed (pursuant to Court Order or by voluntary surrender by you) we will proceed to sell the secured property. However, in the event that the net proceeds of sale are not sufficient to discharge the balance outstanding on your mortgage account, we are entitled to demand payment from you of any deficit remaining unpaid. This includes accrued interest, charges, legal fees, costs incurred in selling the secured property and other related costs”.

45. Mr. O’Connell in his Affidavit of 6th December 2022 exhibited two further letters sent to each of the Defendants from the solicitors for the plaintiff who demanded payment of all monies due to the plaintiff or delivery of vacant possession of the property within seven days failing which legal proceedings would commence for possession of the property.

46. The letters from the Plaintiff’s solicitors dated 4th July 2022 sent to both Defendants inter alia stated as follows:

“We have been instructed that this mortgage loan account is now in arrears and at 28 June 2022 the arrears on the said mortgage loan account stood at €341,942.13 and continue to accrue.

We are instructed by our client that you were called upon to pay the full amount due on foot of the said account and we are instructed that you have failed and refused to discharge the said sum.

We have now received our client’s clear instructions to call upon you to discharge all monies due, in regard to the above mortgage/loan account/s and secured by the mortgage or charge registered against the above property, or to deliver up vacant possession of the property to our client within seven days from the date hereof.

Please note that if all monies due and secured as aforesaid, namely a sum of €614,185.12 are not discharged in full or vacant possession of the property is not delivered to our client within seven days of the date of this letter, our instructions are to commence proceedings for possession of the property without further notice to you in writing or otherwise.

Please be advised that if our client is obliged to take legal proceedings against you, then any legal costs incurred will be your responsibility and we will rely on this and the previous correspondence from our client in seeking any costs incurred. It is estimated that the cost of these proceedings will be in the region of €3,000-€4,500.

We suggest that you treat this matter as one of great urgency and that you take legal advice as to your position”.

47. Mr. O’Connell in his Affidavit sworn on 6th December 2022 avers that despite the aforesaid demands, the Defendants failed to pay the said monies or deliver up possession and, therefore, the Plaintiff’s power of sale pursuant to the Deed and Charge arose and became exercisable.

48. Accordingly, in breach of the terms, conditions and covenants contained in the Deed of Mortgage and Charge dated 14th December 2007, the Defendants have since in or around 13th May 2009 defaulted in payment of the monies due and owing to the Plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of the said Charge. Mr. O’Connell avers that on 28th November 2022 there was approximately the sum of €357,678.50 for arrears of such payments due and owing to the Plaintiff and the total sum due and owing as of the date of Mr. O’Connell’s Affidavit of 6th December 2022 by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, inclusive of the aforesaid arrears, amount to the sum of €628,418.60.

49. Mr. O’Connell exhibited a true copy of the Statement of Account for the period from 1st January 2022 to 28th November 2022 which confirmed that the total outstanding balance due from the Defendants to the Plaintiff as of 28th November 2022 was €628,418.60.

The ‘CCMA’

50. Mr. O’Connell in his Affidavit of 6th December 2022 states that the subject property is the primary residence of the Defendants within the meaning of the Central Bank’s Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears (the “CCMA”) and he states that the CCMA is applicable to these proceedings. He says that he is familiar with their provisions and with the responsibilities and obligations it places on lending institutions when dealing with mortgage arrears. He says that the within proceedings have not been issued in contravention of any moratorium period prescribed by the CCMA are in breach of any other provision of the CCMA. He says that where possible, contact has been made in accordance with the provisions of the CCMA in an effort to try and resolve the problem of the arrears and he confirms that every reasonable effort was made to agree an alternative arrangement with the Defendants prior to the issuing of these proceedings.

51. Mr. O’Connell states that consequent upon the assessment of the Defendants’ financial circumstances they were classified under provision 45 of the CCMA and that Pepper Finance has complied with Provision 45 of the CCMA in that the Defendants and their mortgage was assessed for an alternative repayment arrangement (ARA) under the MARP. He says that based on the information provided in their Standard Financial Statement (SFS) and an assessment of their individual circumstances, the Plaintiff was not in a position to offer them an ARA. He states that the Defendants were informed of this by letters dated 8th August 2016 and that legal proceedings could commence with respect to their mortgage loan account and their property after three months from the date of the letter or eight months from the date the arrears arose on their mortgage loan account, whichever date was later, that the Defendants were informed of their right to appeal the Plaintiff’s decision.

52. Mr. O’Connell states that the Defendants did not appeal the Plaintiff’s decision.

53. Mr. O’Connell states that the Plaintiff has complied with Provision 56 of the CCMA and that it has made every reasonable effort under the CCMA to agree an alternative arrangement with the Defendants. He says that the Defendants have been classified as not co-operating and that Plaintiff has issued the notification required in Provision 45 of the CCMA and that the Plaintiff was entitled to issue the within proceedings.

54. Mr. O’Connell states that the Plaintiff has complied with provision 58 of the CCMA in that the Plaintiff’s solicitors OSM Partners LLP wrote to the Defendants on 25th November 2022 notifying them of its intention to commence legal proceedings. Mr O’Connell in his Affidavit dated 6th December 2022 exhibits all of the aforesaid correspondence which includes engagement with the Defendants in relation to the CCMA (as just described) on 8th August 2016 and the letter from OSM Partners LLP on 25th November 2022.

55. I am satisfied that on 11th October 2022 GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans Ltd changed its name to Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Ltd and subsequently Pepper was designated as a designated activity company pursuant to the Companies Act 2014. In this regard, Mr. O’Connell in his Affidavit dated 6th December 2022 exhibited a true copy of the Companies Registration Office Special Resolution for a Change of Name.

56. Mr. O’Connell avers that he does not believe that there is any other person other than those who have been served, in actual possession, or in receipt of the rents and profits of the lands sought to be recovered or any part thereof.

57. By statutory declaration dated 8th December 2022, Andrew Croughan solicitor of OSM Partners LLP, the solicitors for Pepper, made a statutory declaration pursuant to the Statutory Declarations Act 1938.

58. Mr. Croughan declares that in accordance with the Mediation Act 2017 prior to the issuance of the within proceedings he:

(a) advised the intended Plaintiff to consider mediation as a means of attempting to resolve the dispute the subject of the within intended proceedings;

(b) provided the intended Plaintiff with information in respect of mediation services including the names and addresses of persons who provide mediation services;

(c) provided the intended plaintiff information about:

(i) the advantage of resolving the dispute otherwise than the way of the within intended proceedings;

(ii) the benefits of mediation; and

(iii) informed the intended plaintiff of the matters referred to in ss. 10, 11, 14(2) and 14(3) of the Mediation Act 2017.

59. By statutory declaration as to service by registered prepaid post-dated 19th July 2023, Andrew Croughan, solicitor of OSM Partners LLP confirms service on the Defendants of the Civil Bill for Possession and Affidavit in support of the Civil Bill for Possession dated 6th December 2022 and exhibits the details of the registered prepaid posting.

60. As referred to earlier in this judgment, on 11th October 2022 GE Capital Woodchester Home Loans Ltd changed its name to Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Ltd and subsequently Pepper was designated as a designated activity company pursuant to the Companies Act 2014 as evidenced in the Companies Registration Office Special Resolution for a Change of Name.

61. Further, Pepper, as per section 28 of the Central Bank Act 1997 (as amended) is entitled to service the credit agreement which it owns. In paraphrasing the observations of Bolger J. at paragraph (10) of her judgment in Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Egan [2025] IECA 161, in this case, the Plaintiff “seeks possession on its own behalf as the legal owner of the mortgage. It is not purporting to act on behalf of another.”

62. Accordingly, as Pepper has satisfied the requirements of section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 and the Defendants have not made out any defence to the application for an order of possession of the subject property (noting Ms. Halpin’s stated position of not opposing Pepper’s application), I dismiss the Defendants’ appeal and affirm the Order of the Circuit Court (Her Honour Judge Fiona O’Sullivan), dated 6th November 2024 and so order that the Plaintiff do recover possession of the subject property, namely All That and Those the property known as 106 Walkinstown Avenue, Dublin 12 and being the property comprised in Folio 57406F of the Register of Freeholders County Dublin.

PROPOSED ORDER

63. I propose to make an Order dismissing the Defendants’ appeal and affirming the Order of the Circuit Court (Her Honour Judge Fiona O’Sullivan), dated 6th November 2024 and so order that the Plaintiff do recover possession of the subject property namely All That and Those the property known as 106 Walkinstown Avenue, Dublin 12 and being the property comprised in Folio 57406F of the Register of Freeholders County Dublin.

64. I shall put the matter in before me at 10:30 on Thursday 30th October 2025 to address the issue of costs.

APPEARANCES

65. Rudi Neuman BL appeared for the Plaintiff, instructed by OSM Partners LLP.

66. Mr. Sean Moynihan represented himself.

67. Ms. Esther Halpin represented herself.

CONLETH BRADLEY

Tuesday 21st October 2025