Ooi v Ireland & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

These proceedings arise from possession being taken of a property known as Dromin House in County Wicklow on 24 February 2025 by the fourth defendant pursuant to a warrant of execution issued by the seventh defendant. The plaintiff, who lived at the Property with her adult children for nearly twenty years, challenges the validity of that warrant. The plaintiff issued plenary summons on 25 March 2025 seeking various reliefs, including orders for removal of the fifth defendant and its agent from the Property and re-entry for herself and her family.

The plaintiff also sought an order for a trial of a preliminary issue of law on the validity of the warrant issued on 16 October 2024 and executed on 24 February 2025. The court declined to direct such a trial.

The Property was originally purchased by the plaintiff's partner in 2005 with loans secured by mortgages held by First Active plc, later succeeded by Promontoria Scariff Designated Activity Company ("Promontoria"). The plaintiff has no established legal interest in the Property, and it has been judicially determined that the Property is not a "family home" under the Family Home Protection Act 1976.

Following default on mortgage repayments, Promontoria obtained a possession order from the Circuit Court in January 2023, stayed for 18 months. The appeal against that order was refused by the High Court in March 2024. The stay expired in September 2024, and an execution order was issued by the County Registrar. The warrant of execution was issued to the Dublin City Sheriff (the fourth defendant), who took possession and handed it to Promontoria, which retained Blackwater Asset Management ("Blackwater") to secure the Property.

The plaintiff also issued constitutional proceedings challenging the Family Home Protection Act 1976, which were refused injunctive relief at both High Court and Court of Appeal levels, with leave to appeal refused by the Supreme Court.

The motion for trial of a preliminary issue was heard on 27 June 2025 following exchange of multiple affidavits from the parties and related entities.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the warrant of execution issued by the seventh defendant to the fourth defendant on 16 October 2024 was valid.
2. Whether the question of the warrant's validity can be determined as a discrete preliminary issue of law separate from factual disputes.
3. Whether directing a trial of a preliminary issue would save time and costs in the litigation.
4. Whether the plaintiff has standing to maintain proceedings challenging the warrant.
5. Whether the proceedings are out of time given the procedural history and applicable time limits for judicial review.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The validity of the warrant is a question of law capable of determination in isolation from the facts.
• If the warrant is valid, the plaintiff accepts she has no cause of action, so a preliminary issue trial would save time and costs.
• The plaintiff suggests there was improper collusion and interference affecting the validity of the warrant.
• The plaintiff sought to rely on a statement relating to the execution of the warrant to support her contention of factual disputes.

Defendants' Arguments

• The validity of the warrant cannot be determined without reference to disputed facts; there is no agreed factual matrix.
• The plaintiff's challenge to the warrant is an administrative matter more properly addressed by judicial review, and the proceedings are out of time.
• The plaintiff lacks standing if the Property was not her dwelling at the time of execution.
• Even if the warrant were invalid, the plaintiff would not be entitled to possession due to the underlying valid possession order held by Promontoria.
• Relying on the precedent in Moore v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, a technical defect in a warrant does not automatically entitle a dispossessed party to repossession.
• The defendants objected to the admissibility of certain evidence from the plaintiff related to the execution of the warrant, which was initially excluded but later admitted for purposes of this motion only.
• The defendants maintain that a preliminary trial would not save time or costs and could lead to duplication and inefficiency.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the criteria for directing a trial of a preliminary issue as set out in Campion. A fundamental prerequisite is that there be no dispute about the material facts; the legal question must be discrete and capable of resolution on an agreed factual matrix. Here, the plaintiff failed to identify clearly the precise legal question regarding the warrant's validity and did not establish an agreed factual basis. Significant factual disputes exist concerning the circumstances of the warrant's issuance and execution, including allegations of collusion and procedural irregularities.

The court observed that the plaintiff initiated the motion unusually early, before pleadings were exchanged, and that affidavits revealed contested facts. The plaintiff's attempt to rely on additional evidence was initially rejected due to procedural concerns but later admitted for the limited purpose of this interlocutory application, ultimately highlighting further factual disputes.

Moreover, the court accepted the defendants' position that even if the warrant were invalid, it would not resolve the proceedings in the plaintiff's favour, as the underlying possession order remains valid, and the plaintiff lacks legal interest in the Property. Other substantive issues, including standing and timeliness of the proceedings, must also be addressed before the validity of the warrant.

Given these factors, the court concluded that a trial of a preliminary issue would not save time or costs and would not be consistent with the overall justice of the case, including fair procedures for all parties.

Holding and Implications

The court refused the plaintiff's application for a trial of a preliminary issue concerning the validity of the warrant of execution.

The direct effect is that the litigation will proceed without segregation of the validity of the warrant as a standalone preliminary question. The parties are to continue with the proceedings toward a full trial, with directions to be given for the exchange of pleadings and case management. No new precedent was established, and the decision reflects the court's application of established principles regarding preliminary issues and procedural fairness.