The High Court's refusal to adjourn proceedings brought by a financial fund-appointed receiver seeking the repossession of a house owned All-Ireland winning hurler and manager Davy Fitzgerald is to be appealed to the Court of Appeal.
As a result of the appeal, a stay has been placed on proceedings brought by receiver James Anderson of Deliotte, who was appointed by Pepper Finance Ireland DAC, seeking the possession of a property, which Mr Fitzgerald owns at Clonara, Sixmilebridge in Co Clare.
The court heard Mr Fitzgerald's sister, Helen Fitzgerald, has resided there for several years.
Mr Fitzgerald acquired the property with loans from ACC Bank that were purportedly acquired by Pepper in 2019.
Last week, Mr Justice Garrett Simons dismissed Ms Fitzgerald's pre-trial application to have the repossession proceedings adjourned until the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) had adjudicated on an issue she raised.
She claimed that as a tenant of the property, her tenancy can only be lawfully ended by the service of a valid notice of termination.
She claims that no such notice has been served on her, and has made a referral to the RTB, whose functions include the provision of a dispute resolution service for tenants and landlords.
She further claimed that the receiver's repossession proceedings should be put on hold and adjourned until the RTB had determined the matter.
The application was opposed by the plaintiffs.
Refusal
The judge refused the adjournment application and said the case should be readied for hearing before the High Court on the grounds that the determination of issues raised by Ms Fitzgerald, including if she can assert that she has a binding tenancy against the plaintiffs, lies with the High Court and not with the RTB.
There was nothing in the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act which states that the RTB has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a valid tenancy ever existed, the judge added.
When the matter was mentioned before Mr Justice Simons on Monday, the judge said that the receiver and the fund were entitled to their legal costs.
However, after being told that the matter was being appealed, the judge placed a stay on the repossession application and the costs orders pending the outcome of the appeal.
The judge also gave the sides liberty to apply to the court should the need arise.
When the dispute was previously mentioned before the courts last year, Mr Fitzgerald's lawyers raised several issues about loans he acquired from ACC, including the ones acquired by Pepper.
Mr Fitzgerald's claims include that he is the victim of a fraud that has resulted in proceedings being brought against him before a Portuguese court.
Mr Fitzgerald claims his name had, without his knowledge or consent, been put on "false" mortgage documentation in respect of "six or seven" properties in Portugal.
He has brought proceedings over the fraud he claims has been committed against him, which he has linked to the repossession action.
Mr Fitzgerald also claims the repossession claim should be before the Circuit Court, and not the High Court.
Mr Fitzgerald further claims he wants to redeem the mortgage of over €200,000 but says he cannot do so because Pepper is demanding an interest surcharge of €25,000, to which he claims it is not entitled.
Mr Fitzgerald's counsel have raised questions about the validity of the transfer of the loans from ACC to Pepper, and claims that he was given insufficient and heavily redacted information about his loan from Pepper.
Lawyers for the fund and the receiver rejected Mr Fitzgerald's criticism of them.
