The High Court granted a receiver’s application for an interlocutory injunction seeking possession of an apartment in County Limerick occupied by Thomas and Catherine Reidy. The court said the order would be stayed for a period to allow them to arrange to move, with the duration of the stay and the application’s costs to be addressed after the judgment.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Stack on 29 July 2021, concerned Apartment 2, Fisherman’s Wharf, Manor Court. Stephen Tennant, appointed receiver over the property, sought possession and an order restraining the Reidys from interfering with his functions. Although framed as prohibitory relief in the notice of motion, the judge said the application was in substance for a mandatory injunction.
The Reidys said they had agreed orally with the property’s registered owners to buy it for €100,000 and had spent money renovating it. The judge accepted for the purposes of this application that an oral agreement had been made in September 2016. But the property was subject to a charge, and the lender or its successor had not given written consent to the sale. The Reidys did not claim to have an agreement with the lender, Everyday Finance Designated Activity Company, or its predecessors to release that charge.
The Reidys also relied on an alleged assurance from an employee of the receiver’s office that the sale would proceed. The judge accepted, for the interlocutory application only, that the statement could imply Everyday would consent to releasing its security, and that the Reidys had spent about €20,000 on structural renovations in reliance on it. But she found there was no stateable case on several required elements of promissory estoppel, including a pre-existing legal relationship with the receiver and unfairness or unconscionability. She noted that the receiver had offered to sell the property for €120,000, which he considered its market value in shell-and-core condition, and that the Reidys had refused.
The judge concluded that the receiver had shown a strong case likely to succeed at a full hearing. She did not assess the balance of convenience, though she said that if she had, it would have favoured the injunction. She also rejected the argument that delay should prevent interim relief, finding no culpable delay on the facts.
The injunction did not necessarily dispose of the proceedings: the judge noted that a successful estoppel claim might instead support compensation for renovation work. She ordered a stay to allow the Reidys time to move, but did not specify its duration in the judgment. The parties were to be heard on that period and on costs.