Appeal against summary possession order for defaulted mortgage refused as legal title upheld despite securitisation

The High Court refused an appeal by the borrowers against a summary order for possession of their property, originally granted by the Circuit Court to a lending institution following default on a mortgage. The borrowers, self-represented, argued that the lender could not enforce the mortgage due to complex changes involving securitisation and corporate restructuring, including claims that ownership of the debt and charge had changed, and that unfair contract terms were present. The court found the lending institution remained the legal owner of the mortgage charge and that the process of securitisation did not affect its right to enforce possession. The court also held that the relevant contractual terms were neither unfair nor unclear, and that the borrowers’ arguments—including reliance on expert submissions and tax determinations—were not relevant to the legal entitlement being asserted. Ultimately, the court held that the legal requirements for summary possession had been met and dismissed the appeal, with costs awarded for most of the proceedings to the lender due to the delay caused by inadequate disclosure of certain documents.