Pepper Finance v. Cuffe – Conclusive Land Registry Entries & Admissibility of Litigation-Generated Business Records in Summary Possession Actions

1. Introduction

Court: High Court of Ireland | Date: 10 July 2025 | Judge: Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan

This de novo High Court appeal arose from an order for possession made by the Circuit Court in July 2024 at the suit of Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC (“Pepper”) against Jonathan Cuffe, the registered owner and occupier of a principal private residence in County Waterford.

The appeal raised two principal defences:

That Pepper held merely an equitable, not a legal, mortgage because of alleged defects in the 2004/2005 deed, and
That Pepper’s proofs of default relied on inadmissible hearsay – namely computer-generated loan statements said not to be records of business within s.14 of the Civil and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020.

The decision is important because, while endorsing existing Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authority on the conclusiveness of the Land Registry, it adds two clarifications:

A defendant who has not instituted rectification proceedings cannot obtain an adjournment of a summary possession application merely by asserting a potential registration error; and
Loan statements generated shortly before the swearing of an affidavit, but compiled from data created in the ordinary course of business, remain admissible under s.14 (1)(a) of the 2020 Act even if produced “for the purpose of proceedings.”

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Phelan dismissed the appeal and affirmed the possession order. Key findings:

Pepper is the registered owner of the charge; the Land Registry entry (Folio WD28332F) is conclusive (s.31 & s.62 of the Registration of Title Act 1964; Bank of Ireland v Cody).
Default was established: arrears exceeded €113,000, no payments since 2012, and statutory demand letters were unchallenged.
The defendant’s “no legal mortgage” argument was “a red herring”; even if arguable, the correct avenue was an application to rectify the register, which had never been issued in eight years of litigation.
Loan statements exhibited were admissible business records; the litigation-generation point did not fall within the s.14 (3)(iii) exclusion.
No credible defence or basis for plenary hearing existed; summary relief was therefore appropriate.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

Bank of Ireland v. Smyth [1993] 2 IR 102 – early statement that the s.62(7) discretion does not permit refusal on sympathetic grounds but is confined to equitable principles.
Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. Cody [2021] IESC 26 – Supreme Court confirmed:
- Conclusive nature of the Register;
- Two proofs only: (i) ownership of the charge; (ii) exercisable right to possession.
Tanager DAC v. Kane [2018] IECA 352 – Defence cannot impeach the Register; any challenge must be via rectification proceedings.
Start Mortgages DAC v. Ryan [2021] IEHC 719 – Restated burden of proof in summary possession; heavily quoted at paras 32–33.
Promontoria (Aran) v. Burns [2020] IECA 87 & Bank of Ireland v. O’Malley [2019] IESC 84 – Distinguished; they concern monetary judgments requiring particularised statements.
Start Mortgages DAC v. Clarke [2024] IEHC 310 – Distinction between possession actions and liquidated money claims.
Pepper v. Egan [2025] IEHC 31 & Pepper/Shoreline v. Jacob [2021] IEHC 654 – Previous scrutiny of the same transfer chain, accepted as valid.

Justice Phelan synthesised these authorities to reject each defence.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Jurisdiction & Procedure
Possession sought under s.62(7) RTA 1964 and s.3(2) Land & Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013. Order 5B Circuit Court Rules governs procedure. The High Court heard appeal de novo.
Proofs Required
Following Cody & Ryan, Pepper had to prove:
- (a) it is registered owner of the charge – satisfied by Folio extract;
- (b) default has triggered the right – satisfied by unrebutted evidence of arrears and demand.
“Equitable vs Legal” Mortgage Defence
Defendant argued the 2004 deed could not create a legal mortgage because he was not then owner. The judge held:
- The register shows the charge; conclusiveness precludes enquiry (Tanager).
- Even obiter, evidential basis absent – no dates of contract, no rectification motion filed.
- Adjournment refused: eight years’ delay, speculative defence, potential abuse as delaying tactic.
Hearsay & Business Records Defence
Defendant said statements were generated for litigation and inadmissible. The Court ruled:
- Statements derive from data compiled in ordinary course; generation date irrelevant (para 74).
- s.14 (1)(a) 2020 Act applies; s.14 (3)(iii) exception does not because underlying data were not prepared for litigation.
- In possession actions quantum precision unnecessary; default is the only material fact (para 70–71).

3.3 Anticipated Impact

This ruling will likely:

Discourage speculative “rectification” defences when no proceedings are on foot, limiting delaying tactics.
Provide persuasive authority that computer-generated statements compiled from historic ordinary-course data remain admissible even if printed for court, easing evidential burdens on lenders.
Re-emphasise the limited nature of inquiries in s.62(7) applications: proof of registration + proof of default.
Encourage earlier filing of genuine rectification applications where bona fide disputes over registration exist.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusive Register (s.31 RTA 1964)
Once a charge is entered on a folio, the entry is deemed correct. You cannot contradict it in possession proceedings; you must bring a separate “rectification” case if you believe it wrong.
Summary Possession v. Money Judgment
A possession case only decides who controls the property. It does not calculate the exact debt. Hence the court needs evidence of default but not a detailed breakdown of every cent owed.
Business Records (s.14 Civil & Criminal Law (Misc. Prov.) Act 2020)
A document is admissible hearsay if:
- Information was compiled in the ordinary course of a business, and
- It wasn’t prepared solely for litigation (or falls outside the specific exclusions).
Generating a print-out to bring historic data to court does not disqualify the record.
Rectification of the Register
A separate chancery-type action asking the Property Registration Authority (or court) to amend a folio because of mistake or fraud. Until rectified, the entry stands.

5. Conclusion

Pepper Finance v. Cuffe consolidates the modern line of Irish authority on summary possession:

The Land Registry is king – unless and until rectified, its entries govern.
Defendants cannot delay possession proceedings by merely threatening a rectification action; they must actually institute one.
Business records compiled in the ordinary course remain admissible even when printed for litigation, easing lenders’ proofs of default.
The judgment provides further guidance distinguishing possession suits from monetary claims, streamlining lender remedies and reinforcing borrower obligations.

Practitioners should ensure any challenge to registration is pursued promptly and that objections to business-record evidence are firmly grounded in the statutory framework. Courts, for their part, are likely to continue insisting on focused, evidence-based defences to avoid unnecessary delay in mortgage enforcement.