Mars Capital Finance Ireland D.A.C. v Carty & ors (Approved) [2026] IECA 40 (18 March 2026)

Mars Capital Finance Ireland D.A.C. v Carty & ors (Approved) [2026] IECA 40 (18 March 2026)

The renewal of the execution order was validly effected in accordance with Order 36, Rules 13 and 14 of the Circuit Court Rules, which do not require notice to the judgment debtor for renewal within six years of the original order. The procedural steps for substitution of the judgment creditor and execution were properly followed, and the alleged defects in the execution process were not substantiated. The appeal was confined to the grounds advanced, all of which failed on the facts and law.

Citation
[2026] IECA 40
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Mars Capital Finance Ireland D.A.C.; Defendant/appellant: Patrick Carty; Defendant/appellant: Idena Carty; Defendant/appellant: Any person in occupation of the property at Newtown, Caim, Enniscorthy, in the County of Wexford
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (interlocutory Order) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Possession Orders, Renewal of Execution Orders, Notice Requirements Under Circuit Court Rules, Assignment of Mortgagee Rights, Res Judicata
Property Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Execution of Possession Orders Renewal of Execution Orders Notice Requirements Under Circuit Court Rules Assignment of Mortgagee Rights Res Judicata

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mars Capital Finance Ireland D.A.C.

Plaintiff/respondent

Patrick Carty

Defendant/appellant

Idena Carty

Defendant/appellant

Any person in occupation of the property at Newtown, Caim, Enniscorthy, in the County of Wexford

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (interlocutory Order) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the renewal of the execution order complied with Order 36, Rule 13 and 14 of the Circuit Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether notice to the appellants was required for renewal of the execution order
  3. 3 Whether the execution process suffered from defects as identified in Start Mortgages v. Kavanagh

Ratio Decidendi

The renewal of the execution order was validly effected in accordance with Order 36, Rules 13 and 14 of the Circuit Court Rules, which do not require notice to the judgment debtor for renewal within six years of the original order. The procedural steps for substitution of the judgment creditor and execution were properly followed, and the alleged defects in the execution process were not substantiated. The appeal was confined to the grounds advanced, all of which failed on the facts and law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The interlocutory order of the High Court directing the appellants to vacate the premises and restraining interference with the respondent's rights is affirmed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.