The High Court has refused Richard Duggan’s application for summary judgment against Supermacs Ireland Limited over claimed rent arrears of €135,412.69, directing the dispute to a plenary hearing.
The application concerned rent claimed for Duggan’s property from March 2020 to April 2021. The judgment says Duggan was the registered owner during that period and Supermacs had been a tenant there for many years.
After Duggan fell into loan arrears in February 2020, Everyday Finance DAC appointed a receiver over the property. Supermacs either stopped paying rent or made partial payments to the receiver, or directly to Duggan, who passed the money on to the receiver. Duggan sold the property in March 2021 and used the proceeds to discharge his liability to Everyday Finance. A settlement agreement provided for Duggan to pursue rent arrears that accumulated after the receiver’s appointment and before the sale. Supermacs was not a party to that agreement.
Duggan argued that appointing a receiver did not remove his entitlement to the rent, even if it affected who could collect it during the receivership. He relied on the settlement agreement and case law concerning receivers’ powers. Supermacs disputed the debt and argued that rent arrears from the receivership period were a matter for the receiver. It also said further disclosure and oral evidence, including the deed discharging the receiver, could improve its defence.
Justice Bolger said summary judgment could be entered only if it was very clear there was no defence. A possible improvement to a defence had to be a reasonable and viable prospect, rather than speculation. She found that the reasoning in an earlier case about a receiver’s deed of discharge gave credibility to Supermacs’ argument that the wording of the relevant deed in this case could improve its position. Although the prospect only just went beyond speculation, the judge considered it sufficient to require a plenary hearing. She also took account of shortcomings identified in Duggan’s proof.
The court did not decide whether the rent was owed or which party was entitled to recover it. Those issues remain for the plenary hearing. Justice Bolger gave an indicative view that the costs of the summary judgment motion should be costs in the cause, leaving the matter for the trial judge. She listed the case for mention on 17 November 2022 to hear any submissions on costs.