The High Court has refused four applications for interlocutory injunctions brought by receiver Ken Tyrrell and Everyday Designated Activity Company in disputes over four buy-to-let properties owned by Michael Mulligan. The court was not satisfied that the plaintiffs had proved that the underlying loans had been transferred to Everyday Designated Activity Company, so it refused the interim relief sought.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Nuala Butler on 25 May 2022, concerned applications seeking to restrain Mulligan and others with notice from trespassing on or occupying the properties or interfering with the receivership. The plaintiffs also sought the return of keys, alarm codes and other access devices. The properties were occupied by tenants, who were not notified of the applications. The plaintiffs’ counsel accepted that any relief would have to exclude the occupants.
Mulligan admitted taking out the loans and falling into default, but disputed other matters, including the amounts outstanding. He also argued that the original lender had overcharged him. The judge noted that he reserved the right to pursue a separate argument about documents he said were presented to him as life insurance paperwork, rather than refinancing agreements, in the substantive proceedings.
The central issue on these applications was the evidence of the 2019 transfer of loans and mortgages from AIB companies to Everyday Designated Activity Company. The plaintiffs relied on extracts from a redacted global transfer deed and schedules listing properties and mortgage security details. The judge said the material raised a fair question about whether the mortgages had been transferred, but did not establish that the underlying loans had been transferred. A “hello” letter listing loan accounts did not match the security identification numbers in the schedules.
During the plaintiffs’ reply at the hearing, counsel sought to introduce further transfer material. The judge refused the request because no explanation had been given for its late introduction and the material was likely available when the applications were issued. It was not produced to the court.
Without proof that the loans had been transferred, the plaintiffs could not establish their entitlement to act on a default under those loans, including to exercise rights under the mortgages. The judge said the evidence at a later substantive trial might be sufficient, but she had to decide the applications on the evidence before her. She also expressed concern that the novation documents appeared to identify receiver appointments made on dates that did not match the relevant appointments.
The court refused the interlocutory applications. It did not determine the parties’ ultimate rights or resolve the underlying disputes, and the judge’s observations on other issues were expressly obiter.