Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Moloney (Approved) [2023] IECA 161 (23 June 2023)

Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Moloney (Approved) [2023] IECA 161 (23 June 2023)

The appellant, as the registered owner of the charge, was entitled to issue execution on foot of the order for possession, and the High Court erred in permitting the respondent to challenge the conclusiveness of the register by reference to the securitisation transaction.

Citation
[2023] IECA 161
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC; Defendant/respondent: Oliver Moloney
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Mortgage Possession, Execution of Judgments, Registration of Title, Securitisation, Standing to Enforce Security
Property Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Possession Execution of Judgments Registration of Title Securitisation Standing to Enforce Security

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC

Plaintiff/appellant

Oliver Moloney

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as registered owner of the charge, was entitled to issue execution on foot of an order for possession after securitisation of the loan book
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in allowing the respondent to challenge the conclusiveness of the register under the Registration of Title Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, as the registered owner of the charge, was entitled to issue execution on foot of the order for possession, and the High Court erred in permitting the respondent to challenge the conclusiveness of the register by reference to the securitisation transaction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order pursuant to O. 42, r. 24 granting the appellant liberty to issue execution in respect of the order for possession made on 11th October, 2010.
  • Provisional order for costs: appellant to recover costs of the appeal and two thirds of the costs of the High Court application, subject to further submissions.