The High Court has refused an urgent application by Declan Houlihan to stop a public auction of farm land, finding he had not raised a fair question to be tried on the grounds advanced at the interlocutory stage.
In a judgment delivered on 20 September 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger said the auction was scheduled for noon that day. The court had previously barred the defendants from accepting online offers for the land pending further order. The application was heard on 13 September, when AIB and AIB Mortgage Bank were removed from it.
The judge said a house on the farm where the second plaintiff, Mr Houlihan’s mother, lives had been excluded from the proposed sale in an online advertisement amended on 6 September. The receiver had also confirmed willingness to give an undertaking not to market or sell that house until the proceedings are determined. The judge said the timing of those steps might be relevant to costs, but they addressed the concern about the house for the purpose of the injunction application.
Mr Houlihan advanced three remaining grounds: that he and his wife had not received letters about the transfer of the loan; that the receiver’s appointment instrument wrongly described the receiver as their agent; and that he disputed a 2004 mortgage. The judge said copies of the letters had been provided to him on 16 July, before the injunction application was brought. They had been sent by ordinary prepaid post, as provided for in a 2011 facility letter, and there was no suggestion they had been sent to the wrong address. The court was not satisfied that this ground raised a fair question to be tried.
On the receiver’s appointment, the judge described the agency wording as a standard clause. Mr Houlihan had not challenged the defendants’ counsel’s submission that the receiver was the mortgagor’s agent as a matter of law beyond saying he had not appointed the receiver as his agent. The court found no fair question to be tried on that point.
Mr Houlihan alleged fraud in relation to the 2004 mortgage and denied signing it. The defendants relied on a copy bearing signatures he acknowledged as his and his wife’s, witnessed by a solicitor. The judge noted he had not sought the solicitor’s views or produced documents he said he still had concerning a loan he said was cleared in 2004. She also referred to the 2011 facility letter, which he acknowledged signing and which identified the farm as security for a restructured loan of €518,510. The court found no fair question to be tried about the mortgage or the defendants’ reliance on that letter.
In refusing the application, the judge said the balance of convenience favoured refusal. She noted the acknowledged debt, limited repayments, crops planted on the land, and contractual commitments extending to 2027. She also noted that Mr Houlihan declined to give an undertaking as to damages, saying he did not understand why he should give one and was unsure how damages would be calculated.