Pepper Finance Corporation [Ireland] Designated Activity Company v Hayes and Anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 692 (04 December 2025)

Pepper Finance Corporation [Ireland] Designated Activity Company v Hayes and Anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 692 (04 December 2025)

The plaintiff, as the registered owner of the charge and legal owner of the debt, is entitled to a summary order for possession under section 62(7) of the 1964 Act. Securitisation only affected the beneficial interest and did not remove the plaintiff's right to enforce. The terms relied on are core, transparent, and not unfair. Change of company name or ownership does not affect entitlement.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 692
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC; Defendant/appellant: Suzanne Hayes; Defendant/appellant: William Hayes
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Summary Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal refused; order for possession affirmed.
Legal Topics
Mortgage Possession, Securitisation, Legal Title Vs Beneficial Ownership, Unfair Contract Terms, Summary Procedure, Company Law (change of Name)
Property Law Banking Law Contract Law Consumer Protection Mortgage Possession Securitisation Legal Title Vs Beneficial Ownership Unfair Contract Terms +2 more

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC

Plaintiff/respondent

Suzanne Hayes

Defendant/appellant

William Hayes

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Summary Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a summary order for possession under section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964
  2. 2 Whether securitisation of the mortgage affects the plaintiff's entitlement to enforce the security
  3. 3 Whether the terms of the mortgage are unfair under Directive 93/13/EEC

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, as the registered owner of the charge and legal owner of the debt, is entitled to a summary order for possession under section 62(7) of the 1964 Act. Securitisation only affected the beneficial interest and did not remove the plaintiff's right to enforce. The terms relied on are core, transparent, and not unfair. Change of company name or ownership does not affect entitlement.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; order for possession affirmed.

Orders

  • Order for possession granted to plaintiff.
  • Costs to plaintiff up to and including first hearing; later costs not awarded due to plaintiff's conduct regarding redactions.