Neutral Citation No:  NICh 15
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
"the Chief Enforcement Officer do deliver possession of the premises situate and known as 52 Rathfriland Road, Newry ("the premises") to the applicant Bernadette Heaney as executrix of the estate of Grace McEvoy (Deceased) or her agent."
Chronology of proceedings
(a) 28 February 2017 - Horner J made an order that the plaintiff/respondent recover possession of the premises ("possession order").
(b) 25 January 2018 - Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal against the possession order made by Horner J.
(c) 29 November 2018 – Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
(d) 8 February 2019 - The plaintiff/respondent's solicitors served Notice of Intent to Enforce a Non-money Judgment on the appellants.
(e) 15 April 2019 - Application for Enforcement of Judgment made by the appellants.
(f) 10 May 2019 - Notice of Intention to make an Order for Delivery of Possession of Land was served on the appellants.
(g) 15 May 2019 - The appellants served a Notice of Objection to the making of an order for the delivery of possession of land.
(h) 11 June 2019 – The Notice of Objection was listed for hearing The Notice of Objection was dismissed by the Master who made an Order for the Delivery of Possession of the premises.
Hearing before the EJO Master
"We are objecting [this] because Bernadette Heaney is a criminal and should never have been rewarded (sic) possession of my late mother's property for the following reasons:
- She impersonated a solicitor as did her husband who wrote the fraudulent Will and acted as second solicitor witness.
- This couple took advantage of an elderly lady lacking of mental capacity and this has been backed by the Southern Trust/NHS.
- She brought no arguments, defence or evidence in this case and therefore should have resulted in a default judgment.
- Fraud case needs to be brought forward in regards to this criminal and her husband committing serious Will fraud.
- This possession should be stopped until further action is taken."
Relevant legal framework
Appeals from the EJO
Discretion of the EJO
Submission of the parties
(a) The possession order should never have been made.
(b) The Master did not make an order.
(c) The Master failed to consider the fact the Will was fraudulently made.
"Once the court has determined to grant possession of a property to the creditor the EJO's duty is to enforce that order without delay. So the EJO should make an immediate order for the delivery of possession and any person aggrieved by that decision can appeal to the High Court or go back to the court which granted the original possession order and seek a stay of enforcement."