Start Mortgages DAC v McInerney & Anor (Approved) [2023] IEHC 155 (28 March 2023)

Start Mortgages DAC v McInerney & Anor (Approved) [2023] IEHC 155 (28 March 2023)

The plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in executing the order for possession, including engagement with the defendants and the COVID-19 moratorium. No prejudice to the defendants was established. The legal test for granting leave to execute under Order 42, rule 24 was met.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 155
Parties
Plaintiff: Start Mortgages DAC; Defendant: William McInerney (otherwise Bill McInerney); Defendant: Mary McInerney
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Execute Order for Possession / Post Judgment, Application for Extension of Time to Execute
Outcome
Leave to execute granted
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgments, Extension of Time, Possession Orders, Personal Insolvency Arrangements
Civil Procedure Property Law Insolvency Execution of Judgments Extension of Time Possession Orders Personal Insolvency Arrangements

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Start Mortgages DAC

Plaintiff

William McInerney (otherwise Bill McInerney)

Defendant

Mary McInerney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Execute Order for Possession / Post Judgment, Application for Extension of Time to Execute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in executing the order for possession beyond six years
  2. 2 Whether any prejudice to the defendants justifies refusal of leave to execute
  3. 3 Whether the validity of the original possession order can be challenged at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in executing the order for possession, including engagement with the defendants and the COVID-19 moratorium. No prejudice to the defendants was established. The legal test for granting leave to execute under Order 42, rule 24 was met.

Court Disposition

Leave to execute granted

Orders

  • Plaintiff granted leave to issue execution of the order for possession dated 28 March 2011 pursuant to Order 42, rule 24.
  • A stay of two months imposed on the order to allow the first named defendant to pursue a personal insolvency arrangement.