Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company v Wickham (Approved) 2024] IEHC 146 (07 March 2024)

Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company v Wickham (Approved) 2024] IEHC 146 (07 March 2024)

The plaintiff is entitled to an order for possession as the defendant defaulted on the loan, Wheatfield was not his principal private residence at loan inception, and the loan terms permitted the bank to require principal and interest repayments after the initial interest-only period. Compliance with CCMA and MARP was not required, and other procedural objections lacked substance.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 146
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company; Defendant/appellant: Martin Wickham
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Circuit Court Order for Possession
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Circuit Court order for possession affirmed.
Legal Topics
Mortgage Possession, Loan Default, Principal Private Residence, Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears, Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process
Property Law Banking Law Contract Law Mortgage Possession Loan Default Principal Private Residence Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company

Plaintiff/respondent

Martin Wickham

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Circuit Court Order for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Wheatfield was the defendant's principal private residence at the time of loan
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff complied with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears and Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process
  3. 3 Whether the loan terms permitted interest-only repayments for the full term

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff is entitled to an order for possession as the defendant defaulted on the loan, Wheatfield was not his principal private residence at loan inception, and the loan terms permitted the bank to require principal and interest repayments after the initial interest-only period. Compliance with CCMA and MARP was not required, and other procedural objections lacked substance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Circuit Court order for possession affirmed.

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal brought by the defendant/appellant and affirm the order of the Circuit Court dated 25 January 2023.
  • Lift the stay placed on the order for possession in the Circuit Court.