The High Court has declared that A and B have no estate, right, title or interest in two south Dublin houses and granted a permanent injunction restraining them and others with notice of the order from entering or interfering with the properties.
Mr Justice Allen made the orders on 1 October 2019 after considering the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. He found that the defendants had no arguable defence and that no issue required a trial. The court also dismissed their counterclaim under Order 19, rule 28 as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being frivolous and vexatious. The judge said he would hear counsel on appropriate ancillary orders.
The plaintiff, Shawl Property Investments Limited, said it bought the houses from Beltany Property Finance DAC on 10 September 2018 under powers of sale in mortgages granted by the first defendant to EBS Building Society. The first defendant had borrowed more than €8 million in 2005 to buy a portfolio of eight residential properties. EBS obtained a possession order in 2009, appointed a receiver in 2010 and transferred the loan and security to Beltany in 2017. The first defendant was adjudicated bankrupt in April 2017 and discharged a year later.
The plaintiff said it took possession of the two houses on 11 September 2018. It alleged that groups including the first defendant later broke into the properties and changed the locks. The defence admitted that the first defendant entered the houses, changed locks and disabled security systems, but denied that he caused damage. The judgment did not determine the defendants’ responsibility for alleged property damage or social media posts.
The defendants’ central position was that the first defendant remained the owner. They argued, among other things, that bankruptcy extinguished the loan, that discussions with Beltany created an equitable interest or prevented a sale, and that Beltany could not sell without being in possession. The judge rejected those arguments. He said whether Beltany was in possession at the time of sale was the only disputed fact, but it did not affect the validity of the sales under the statutory power of sale.
The judge also rejected the defendants’ technical challenges to the execution and registration of the conveyances, noting that the title deeds were before the court and appeared regular. He found no basis for the defendants’ claim to ownership or for their damages claim concerning the plaintiff’s use of an unredacted earlier judgment. The decision addressed the summary judgment application and counterclaim; it did not determine the plaintiff’s allegations about damage or social media responsibility.