The High Court has refused Larry and Aileen O’Gara’s application to stop Ulster Bank Ireland DAC from selling six commercial properties in the UK while their case proceeds.
In a judgment delivered on 10 April 2019, Mr Justice David Barniville found that the O’Garas had raised serious issues for trial, including questions about the transfer of the economic interest in their loans to Seaconview DAC, the validity of demands for repayment, and the appointment of receivers. The court did not decide those underlying disputes.
The application was for an interlocutory injunction restraining Ulster Bank, its servants or agents from selling the properties. The judge refused it because the O’Garas had not shown that damages would be inadequate if they later succeeded at trial. He said the properties were commercial investments let to tenants and that financial losses, including lost rent or losses connected to a sale, could be assessed and compensated.
The properties are in Stockton-on-Tees, Bicester, Blackpool, Rochdale, Reading and Hartlepool. The receivers were appointed in July 2018. The application did not seek to halt the receivership or prevent the receivers from collecting rent; it sought to stop sales.
The O’Garas argued that the properties formed a carefully selected portfolio and that members of their family had considered operating businesses from some of them. The judge found the evidence of a special personal or business attachment unconvincing. He noted that the properties had been acquired as commercial investments, were let to commercial tenants, and secured substantial borrowing.
Ulster Bank maintained that it had transferred the loans’ economic interest to Seaconview in 2015 while retaining the legal interest. The O’Garas disputed the transfer and argued, among other things, that it affected the bank’s ability to demand repayment and appoint receivers. They also alleged interest overcharging of €567,188.80; the defendants disputed that figure. These matters remain for the substantive proceedings.
The judge said it was unnecessary to decide whether damages would adequately compensate the defendants or to determine the balance of convenience. He nevertheless stated that, if required, he would have found the balance favoured refusing the injunction. He also said he would not have refused the application on equitable grounds over the plaintiffs’ solicitors’ communications concerning a planned auction in October 2018.
The ruling concerns only the interim request to restrain sales. The court refused that request; it did not determine the parties’ underlying claims.