2026 IEHC 393

THE HIGH COURT [2026] IEHC 393 Record No. 2025/1553P Between:YEOKSEE OOI Plaintiff -andIRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE COURT SERVICES OF COUNTY WICKLOW, JOSEPH BURKE, PROMONTORIA SCARIFF DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY, BLACKWATER ASSET MANAGEMENTAND THE COUNTY REGISTRAR OF WICKLOW Defendants Judgment of Mr. Justice Oisín Quinn delivered on 18 June, 2026 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The plaintiff (Ms. Ooi) lived at Dromin House (the “House”) in Wicklow from 2006 until 24 February 2025 when the House was repossessed by the fourth defendant (“Mr. Burke”). Mr. Burke had been appointed by a warrant of 14 October 2024 (the “Warrant”) issued in the name of the seventh defendant (the “County Registrar”). That appointment followed the issue of an execution order dated 25 September 2024 taken out by solicitors for the fifth defendant (“Promontoria”) who had obtained an order for possession of the House from the Circuit Court by order of 18 January 2023, which order provided for a stay of eighteen months. On taking possession of the House on 24 February 2025, Mr. Burke handed the property over to the sixth defendant (“Blackwater”) who were agents of Promontoria. A receiver on behalf of Promontoria then sold the House on 4 July 2025. 2. The House was owned by Ms. Ooi’s partner who had borrowed money from another bank, secured against the House, which he had failed to repay. The debt and security were acquired by Promontoria who then obtained the possession order. 3. Ms. Ooi had been living at the House from 2006 with her partner and their three children who were all still living there at the time that possession was recovered. Ms. Ooi’s youngest child was under eighteen and was attending sixth year in a nearby school where he was sitting his mock leaving certificate exams at the time of the eviction. The second child was a young adult and was attending second year in a university in Dublin. The eldest child has special needs and was at home in the care of his parents, and in particular in the care of Ms. Ooi who had retired as a doctor in 2013 to provide full time care to this child. 4. These proceedings were commenced on 25 March 2025, at a time when the House had not yet been sold. Initially, Ms. Ooi was representing herself but by October 2025 she had legal representation. In these proceedings Ms. Ooi challenges the lawfulness of the Warrant and the recovery of possession of the House. She claims that, inter alia, the Warrant was unlawful in that it did not appoint a “Court Messenger” (Mr. Burke was not the Wicklow Court 1 Messenger, but rather was the Sheriff for Dublin City) and she seeks declarations and damages, including damages for an alleged violation of her rights pursuant to Article 40.5 of the Constitution. 5. The case ran for six days from 12 May 2026 to 21 May 2026. Evidence was given by Ms. Ooi on her own behalf; and then from Mr. Jerry Burke (“Promontoria’s solicitor”) on behalf of the Promontoria and Blackwater defendants; and then from Mr. Joseph Burke, a Mr. Andrew Cullen (who was the Court Messenger for Wicklow), a Mr. Thomas Gray (a Dublin City Court Messenger and tow truck driver who assisted Mr. Burke with the eviction) and a Ms. Mary Delahanty, now retired, but who had been at the relevant time the Wicklow County Register. These witnesses were called on behalf of what were described as the State Defendants, being the first, second, fourth and seventh defendants. An agreed precis of the evidence of a Mr. David O’Connor, who was appointed as the Receiver, was also submitted as evidence on behalf of the Promontoria and Blackwater defendants. The claim against the third defendant had been discontinued. The defendants were represented in two groups. Firstly, the first, second, fourth and seventh defendants were represented together and filed a full defence which included some preliminary objections and a claim of immunity on the part of the State Defendants. The fifth and sixth defendants were represented together and also filed a full defence with some preliminary objections and, in addition, they claimed an indemnity from the State Defendants in the event that any liability was found to attach to them. II. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 6. In 2005, Ms. Ooi’s partner purchased the House in his sole name with the benefit of a loan which he had obtained from First Active plc in the amount of €3,000,000. This loan was secured by a mortgage over the House. 7. In 2007, this loan was restructured and Ms. Ooi’s partner obtained a new loan facility in the amount of just over €5 million, which was also secured by a mortgage over the House. This second mortgage subsumed and cleared the original loan. When obtaining this loan, Ms. Ooi’s partner completed a statutory declaration pursuant to the Family Home Protection Act 1976 on 28 July 2007, stating that the property was not a family home for the purpose of that Act and that no other person had an interest in the House. Apparently, no repayments have been made since 2013. 8. At some point Promontoria acquired First Active’s interests in relation to the mortgages over the House. In 2021, Promontoria issued proceedings in the Circuit Court in Wicklow to obtain possession of the House. Ms. Ooi, as a person in occupation of the Home, was served with these proceedings and participated in the case, although she was not named as a defendant. 9. Following a hearing at which Ms. Ooi was heard, an order for possession was made by the Circuit Court in January 2023, with a stay on the order for possession for a period of eighteen months. Ms. Ooi was legally represented at that hearing. According to the parties, the stay imposed by the Circuit Court expired on 7 September 2024. 10. The Circuit Court order for possession was appealed, and the appeal was heard in the High Court on 15 February 2024. Ms. Ooi participated in this appeal. By judgment of Mr. Justice Bradley dated 12 March 2024, the appeal was refused and the Circuit Court order granting possession to Promontoria was affirmed. 11. On 13 February 2024, two days before the hearing of the appeal in the High Court, Ms. Ooi issued different proceedings in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of the Family Home Protection Act, 1976. She sought to rely on the then recent decision of the Supreme Court in O’Meara v Minister for Social Protection & Others [2024] IESC 1. Those proceedings (the “Family Home Protection Act proceedings”) have yet to come to trial. 2 12. Ms. Ooi sought an adjournment of her appeal of the Circuit Court possession order to allow that appeal to await the outcome of her Family Home Protection Act proceedings. That application was unsuccessful. 13. The stay on the Circuit Court possession order expired on 7 September 2024. According to Promontoria’s solicitor, in advance of the stay expiring, Promontoria and its solicitors took steps to plan for the taking of possession of the House. 14. Promontoria’s solicitor explained in his evidence that, based on previous encounters with Ms. Ooi’s partner, he anticipated that taking possession of the House might prove difficult. He explained that another judgment had been obtained against Ms. Ooi’s partner for in excess of €20 million arising out of monies advanced to him in respect of a potential commercial development relating to a proposed data centre. This money judgment had not been discharged, and the execution process on foot of that money judgment had proven unsuccessful. 15. In short, Promontoria’s solicitor explained that an order of fieri facias (fifa) had issued in execution of the money judgment in October 2022, but when the Court Messenger for Wicklow attended at the House in March 2023, he returned the order unsatisfied. That fifa order would not have entitled the Court Messenger to take possession of the House, but rather would have allowed him to seize items of personal property to reduce the outstanding judgment. 16. Mr. Cullen, who as it happens was that Court Messenger, explained in his evidence that he found the attempt to execute the fifa order in March 2023 uncomfortable. He described a feeling of apprehension approaching the House. His evidence in this regard was vague and oblique; he referred to long grass (the implication being that it may have concealed animals) and he said that the presence of security cameras gave him a sense of foreboding. He did not like the long driveway or that the property was near enough to his Courts Service office in Bray. Nonetheless, following some interaction by email with Ms. Ooi’s partner, following what Mr. Cullen described as his “house call”, he agreed in an email of 23 March 2023 that “no further action if any will be taken until the conclusion of the GSOC investigation”. None of the witnesses explained what the “GSOC investigation” was about and it did not appear therefore to be considered relevant to this case. 17. In his evidence, Promontoria’s solicitor explained that his client understood that Mr Burke, who was the Dublin City Sheriff, would be in a position to assist with the execution of the possession order. It appears from the evidence that someone from Promontoria had a discussion with Mr Burke in August 2024 about assisting with the execution of the possession order. 18. According to Promontoria’s solicitor, he was then instructed to contact Mr Burke to see if he could assist. The solicitor explained that he contacted Mr Burke and told him that he understood that Promontoria believed he would be able to assist. Mr Burke confirmed that he could assist and that he had done so once in the past when executing a different possession order for the Wicklow County Registrar. 19. The solicitor did not make notes of any of his discussions with Promontoria, although he indicated that this was not unusual. Consequently, he could not remember the identity of anyone in Promontoria who gave him the various specific instructions that he described he received throughout the process of seeking to execute the possession order. He did recall that Promontoria had used Mr Burke in similar cases previously. He also confirmed that it was agreed at the beginning that Mr. Burke was to be paid by Promontoria. 20. According to Mr Burke, following his call with Promontoria’s solicitor, he contacted the Wicklow County Registrar. The outcome of that call was that she confirmed she would be willing to appoint him to execute the possession order. 3 21. The County Registrar also recalled contact from Promontoria’s solicitor during early September 2024. Her recollection was that a message had been left indicating that Promontoria’s solicitors wanted the possession order executed. She stated that her impression was that “they didn’t know what they were talking about because the Circuit Court office doesn’t execute orders — it’s the Sheriff’s Office.” She confirmed that this occurred in September 2024 after the stay had expired. She believed that she left them a message stating that she would “need help” with executing the order. 22. Accordingly, by September 2024 the position reached was as follows: (

1. i)Promontoria had contacted Mr Burke, who confirmed he was willing to assist; (
2. ii)Promontoria’s solicitor had then, on instructions from Promontoria, contacted Mr. Burke who again confirmed he was willing to act; (iii) Promontoria had agreed to pay Mr. Burke €17,000 to do the job; (
3. iv)Mr. Burke had then contacted the Wicklow County Registrar to confirm his willingness to act and she agreed to appoint him as she “needed assistance”. 23. Promontoria’s solicitors then contacted the County Registrar’s office and were advised that they needed to complete an execution order. The execution order was completed on 25 September 2024. This was done by someone in the office of Promontoria’s solicitors. This can be done without notice to the occupiers of the property; see para. 14 of the judgment of McDonald J. for the Court of Appeal in Mars Capital v Carty & Others [2026] IECA 40. Counsel for the State Defendants submitted, in the context of his legal argument for a claim for immunity, that the execution order could nonetheless have been appealed to the Circuit Court. 24. Following the filing of the execution order, a standard procedure was then followed in the Wicklow County Registrar’s office. This standard procedure was explained by both the County Registrar and Mr. Cullen, the Wicklow court messenger. 25. In practice, it was Mr. Cullen’s role to manage the paperwork once an execution order had been filed. He explained that there were a number of template documents on the computer system. He had been the court messenger for Wicklow for nine years, having applied following a job advertisement and interview. He explained that, based on his previous experience at the property in March 2023, he did not feel comfortable executing the possession order in this case. Nonetheless, he outlined the steps normally taken once an execution order is filed, and the steps actually taken by him in this case. 26. Mr. Cullen gave evidence regarding four documents generated by him on 14 October 2024. These documents were each created using templates and they were all dated 14 October 2024. They all appeared with the signature line of the County Registrar (which each misspelt her name). None of them were signed by her but rather Mr. Cullen used a signature stamp to imprint each letter with a stamped signature of the County Registrar. He described that this was the standard procedure he was instructed to follow and he accepted that the County Registrar had not seen any of these letters before he applied her signature stamp. The County Registrar confirmed this during her evidence; see Day 3, page 55. (
4. i)The first letter of 14 October 2024 27. The first letter was addressed to Ms. Ooi’s partner and stated: “I hereby give you notice that an Order for Ejectment for the recovery of the premises/land set out in the Schedule below has been lodged with me for execution. I have issued a warrant to my Court Messenger to execute the said Order and deliver possession of said premises/land to the Plaintiff on the [blank space]. 4 If you have any goods/animals on the premises/land, it would be as well for you to have them removed, otherwise my Court Messenger will put them out on the road, and I shall not be responsible for any loss incurred by you. Schedule [This was left blank]”. (underlined for emphasis). 28. This letter was sent out and a file copy was kept on Mr. Cullen’s file. The date for delivery of possession was left blank and the schedule for describing the premises/lands was also left blank. Mr. Cullen was vague as to why he had left the date for giving up possession blank, but he accepted that a period of time would always be afforded to the occupiers and that efforts would be made to engage with them before any attempt at a forcible repossession would be made. This approach was echoed by the evidence of the County Registrar herself who also indicated that this approach reflected a general practice that had been recommended by meetings of County Registrars that had taken place over the years. 29. While the letter was not signed by the County Registrar, her signature stamp was applied by Mr. Cullen in what he described was the normal way in accordance with his general instructions. 30. This letter stated, incorrectly, that the County Registrar had appointed her court messenger by warrant to execute the order and while the County Registrar in her evidence initially held to the position that she believed she had issued a warrant appointing her Court Messenger (Mr. Cullen) to execute the possession order, it was accepted that no warrant had, in fact, been issued by the County Registrar to Mr Cullen. Indeed, if a warrant appointing Mr. Cullen had been issued, it is clear from the evidence of both Mr. Cullen and the County Registrar that the system in place in Wicklow at the time was that it would have been Mr. Cullen’s job to draw up that warrant appointing himself and that he would have stamped the County Registrar’s signature on that warrant. Based on his evidence alone I am satisfied that, whatever the County Registrar may have genuinely believed had happened, no warrant was issued appointing Mr. Cullen. (
5. ii)The second letter of 14 October 2024 was a letter to Promontoria’s Solicitors 31. This letter acknowledged payment of the execution fee and stated: “We have now issued our four-day demand letter. Our Court Messenger will call on the debtor personally to assess the situation within one month, and we will revert to you in due course.” 32. This letter was sent out and a file copy kept on Mr. Cullen’s file. The letter was also stamped with the County Registrar’s signature. 33. However, there was no clarity as to what the “four-day demand letter” referred to. Equally no such visit by the Court Messenger “within one month”, or at all, occurred. Nonetheless, both the County Registrar and Mr. Cullen explained that this would have been the normal practice. 34. Faced with the uncomfortable disconnect between the standard practice of the County Registrar to enforcing possession orders over homes and what actually happened in this case, the County Registrar described a number of steps which she believed may have happened that I am satisfied on the evidence did not happen. 35. Firstly she explained she believed that Mr. Cullen had in fact visited the house in March 2023 as part of the repossession process. I am satisfied that this did not occur for a number of reasons. Firstly, the possession order was stayed at that point in time. Secondly, there was 5 no execution order issued in respect of the possession order at that time. This was confirmed by Counsel for Promontoria. Indeed it is not clear, given that the Circuit Court order for possession was stayed, that Promontoria could even have applied for an execution order at that time. Thirdly, the County Registrar separately confirmed in her evidence that no steps to take possession would take place until an execution order had been taken out. She made that clear when, during her evidence, she separately described her interactions with Promontoria’s solicitors in September 2024 and where she stated that “the repossession order only takes effect when an Execution Order on foot of that Repossession Order issues from the Circuit Court Office” (Day 3, page 23, line 26). 36. Next, the County Registrar at several points early in her evidence suggested that she had actually appointed her Court Messenger, Mr. Cullen to assist in executing this possession order. While this would have been consistent with the standard documents on her system that were issued and stamped with her signature, I am satisfied that it did not happen in this case for the reasons set out above in para. 30. 37. Next, the County Registrar explained that it would be normal practice to engage, or to try to engage with the occupants of a home due to be repossessed. In this context she again sought to lean back in to what happened in March 2023 in the context of the money judgment against Ms. Ooi’s partner. However I am satisfied that there was no effort to engage here with the occupants in the context of the possession order. Essentially after 14 October 2024 when the warrant appointing Mr. Burke issued, neither the County Registrar nor her Court Messenger had any engagement or made any effort to engage with Ms. Ooi or any of the occupants of the House. They essentially left the process entirely to Mr. Burke. He in turn, as his own evidence and documents issued by him confirmed, acted entirely thereafter on the explicit instructions of Promontoria, which he received through Promontoria’s solicitors. As will be seen, this led to a most dramatic departure from what would normally have happened. 38. Finally, faced with the stark reality that there appeared to have been no engagement from the County Registrar after the appointment of Mr. Burke, the County Registrar in her evidence sought to suggest that she had been kept regularly informed by Mr. Burke in writing by email of the various developments that were taking place. This evidence, in fairness to the legal team for the State Defendants, was not led in direct evidence, rather it was offered by the County Registrar in response to probing questions during cross examination. As this account jarred with the evidence of Mr. Burke (who had not suggested he had done this) and did not tally with the documents produced by the parties either through discovery or by way of agreed books and documents appended to witness statements, Counsel for the State Defendants was offered the opportunity to re-examine the County Registrar. While this was declined, the next day, Counsel for the State Defendants confirmed that as far as could be gleaned from the file, there had been no such communications (see Day 4, page 4). I accept that the County Registrar in giving her evidence in this regard may have genuinely assumed this had happened, however it was not correct. 39. Overall, the evidence clearly demonstrated that after the appointment of Mr. Burke on 14 October 2024 neither the County Registrar nor her Court Messenger, Mr. Cullen took any interest in or played any part in, whether supervisory or otherwise, Promontoria’s efforts through Mr. Burke to recover possession of the House. While the County Registrar said rather vaguely that it “was very clear at all times, that Mr. Burke would conduct the execution according to my instructions … or be answerable to me” (Day 3 page 47) there were no concrete examples of her ever giving Mr. Burke instructions. Indeed, Mr. Burke’s evidence was clear that at all times he took his instructions from Promontoria’s solicitors and that he did not check with her if she agreed with those instructions, nor did he ask her to approve of them but rather he simply “informed her as to what the position was” (Day 2, pages 8285). To the extent, as will be considered below in the context of the discussion on the law, that the law requires the County Registrar and Court Messenger to take responsibility for executing court orders for possession, this responsibility was entirely, on the facts of this 6 case, abdicated and surrendered to Promontoria and Mr. Burke. Consequently, all of the normal steps that would have been taken by the County Registrar and her Court Messenger and that had evolved over years of experience and practice were abandoned. On the facts as transpired here this was critical in several respects, not least because the County Registrar confirmed that her normal practice would always be to instruct her Court Messenger to defer taking possession if an occupier was seeking access to the Courts. (iii) The third letter of 14 October 2024 was to Ms. Ooi’s partner 40. This letter had not been appended to Mr. Cullen’s witness statement. Nonetheless it was in a book of correspondence. This letter was dated 14 October 2024 and bore the signature stamp of the County Registrar, but, as far as Mr. Cullen could recall (unlike the first two letters described above) it was not sent. However, the letter is important as it reflects the established practice in Wicklow. The letter stated: “An Ejectment Order has now been issued in order that clear possession can be obtained from you of the lands and premises at [left blank]. I therefore request that you make arrangements to hand over possession to me or my Representative on or before 11.00am ONE WORKING DAY PRIOR TO [left blank]. If you fail to do so, then I will proceed to eject you or anyone else in occupation without further notice. Needless to say this action will, in addition, result in further expense and publicity to you. Please treat this Notice as FINAL AND URGENT” 41. The words underlined and in bold above, are as per the letter which appeared behind Tab 4 of an agreed book of correspondence. Again, a key date was left blank. Given that the letter was actually stamped with the County Registrar’s signature, Mr. Cullen was asked whether or not it was intended that this letter should go out if, after the process outlined in the earlier letters, no resolution had been achieved. He indicated he would just send this out after the process (i.e. the contact and engagement and visit during the first month) but would nonetheless leave it with the same date. He was also unclear as to how long would be afforded by the date left blank at the end of the second paragraph. At one point in his evidence he suggested he would send it out with this date blank but that sometimes a date would be inserted. He was clear though, that if a date was inserted, that it would be a date instructed to him by the County Registrar; see Day 2 pages 140-142. 42. Given that this letter was not appended to Mr. Cullen’s witness statement or addressed by him in his witness statement it may well be that Mr. Cullen had not thought about this letter much in advance of giving his evidence. However, as far as his evidence went, I am satisfied that the key dates that Mr. Cullen would normally insert in these letters for the handing over of possession would be inserted by him on the explicit instructions of the County Registrar as the person who he considered, quite correctly, to be in charge. It was certainly clear that he did not consider that either he, much less the judgment creditor, had the authority to dictate these dates. 43. The evidence from the County Registrar and Mr. Cullen, when considered in the context of the template letters they used for executing possession orders, indicates that after the first letter the Court Messenger would call on the debtor personally to assess the situation within one month. The County Registrar gave evidence as to this normal practice (see Day 2, page 146 and Day 3, pages 84 to 89 in particular). She explained that the matter had to be handled with great sensitivity and that there would be an effort to engage with the debtor which would include calling to the house and seeking to assess the situation. She described in particular that it was important to assess whether or not there were any children or vulnerable adults at the premises. In the context of this case, she accepted that Ms. Ooi’s 7 adult child with special needs would come into the category of a vulnerable adult. In addition in the context of giving a description as to what the normal procedure would be, she explained that if she understood that an occupant was making any application to court that time would be afforded to allow this to happen (Day 3, page 95). (
6. iv)The fourth letter of 14 October 2024 44. The fourth letter was another template letter dated the 14 October 2024 and bearing the County Registrar’s signature stamp. This one was addressed to Ms. Ooi’s partner and it purported to appoint the Court Messenger Mr. Cullen to execute the possession order. This letter had been left out of both the documents appended to Mr. Cullen’s witness statement and the book of correspondence. 45. It was not in dispute that legally this did not constitute a warrant appointing Mr. Cullen. On the other hand it may have contributed to the County Registrar’s mistaken belief that she had issued a warrant appointing Mr. Cullen. 46. The letter was apparently sent out and stated: “I hereby authorise and empower Andrew Cullen, Court Messenger, of WICKLOW SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and his/her assistants to execute the within Court Order. Given under my hand this day: 14/10/2024.” 47. Notwithstanding this, the evidence shows that no valid warrant appointing Mr Cullen was ever issued. Mr Cullen himself confirmed he had not prepared such a warrant and Counsel for the State Defendants confirmed that no such warrant existed on the file. Accordingly, while the County Registrar believed she had issued such a warrant, this was incorrect. 48. Notwithstanding the preparation by Mr. Cullen of this letter and the affixing by Mr. Cullen of the County Registrar’s signature stamp to this letter, Mr. Cullen indicated he did not wish to execute the possession order and that he informed the County Registrar of this. His position was linked to his earlier feelings of foreboding. The County Registrar in her evidence indicated that she accepted that assistance would be required and she observed that while the role of Court Messenger was very important that it was not a particularly well paid role. 49. The evidence indicated that the County Registrar concluded that she would “need assistance” and decided to appoint Mr Burke. The evidence also shows that Mr. Burke had been identified by Promontoria, and that when he himself suggested his appointment that the County Registrar agreed. The Warrant of 14 October 2024 50. Accordingly, while on 14 October 2024, Mr. Cullen had printed off and signature stamped a letter to the occupier stating that the County Registrar was authorising and empowering “Mr. Cullen, Court Messenger” to execute the possession order, in fact it seems that at some point later that day, on the instructions of the County Registrar, Mr. Cullen printed off a draft warrant and inserted the name “Joseph Burke” with an address of “Dublin City” in the Schedule for “Court Messengers and Bailiffs” and included no other names. The County Registrar told Mr. Cullen to put in Mr. Burke’s name. In turn, she did so because Mr Burke had contacted her and told her he was willing to act. He in turn had done that, following conversations with someone in Promontoria and Promontoria’s solicitor who had asked him if he would act and who had agreed to pay him. 51. As the evidence disclosed, she believed (see Day 3, pages 63 and 66 for an example), incorrectly as it transpired, that she had issued a warrant appointing Mr. Cullen. 52. In addition, she made it clear in her evidence that she intended that Mr. Cullen would assist her in this. In answer to questions during cross examination she stated “My court messenger 8 would always be empowered to assist …. He’s my court messenger, he has to be authorised”; see Day 3, page 63. 53. Her belief about a second warrant is understandable in that, based on her evidence and that of Mr. Cullen, she left the production of all these documents to Mr. Cullen who could apply her signature stamp to them without her having to review the documents in advance. 54. Indeed the County Registrar accepted she could not remember or say that she had reviewed the warrant appointing Mr. Burke before Mr. Cullen applied her signature stamp (Day 3, page 56 to 57). 55. In addition, the County Registrar believed that the legal backdrop gave her “ample authority to appoint a bailiff, along with a court messenger or such, to appoint such assistance as I needed to carry out the order of the court”; see Day 3 page 43. While she believed that legally she could appoint someone to assist “along with a court messenger” and while she believed she had actually appointed her court messenger, the evidence shows that she did not do so. 56. The County Registrar also stated that her understanding was that at the time this warrant was issued that the template of the warrant would have been available to the public via a website and a member of the public could download the template of the warrant (Day 3, page 108). Counsel for the State Defendants did indicate later in the hearing after the evidence had closed, that as of May 2026 in any event this was not possible. 57. It is important at this point in the chronology of events as borne out by the evidence, to pause and bear in mind that any consideration of the Warrant (as compared with the earlier consideration of the four letters) must take place against a more formal legal back drop. The warrant is the key document under the legislation that gives authority to the person who turns up at the doorstep of a home with legal permission to forcibly enter the home and take possession of it as part of the execution process of court orders. 58. This legal back drop will be considered in more detail below in the Discussion section of this judgment, nonetheless it is useful to set out a short description of this legal back drop at this point. 59. The execution of possession orders is governed by the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926, particularly sections 3 to 5. Section 5 provides:“5.—