The High Court has refused David Langan’s application for an interlocutory injunction to stop the completion of a sale of about five acres of land in Lusk. The land had been sold at auction for €245,000, and the court said an order stopping completion would in substance require the seller to breach its contract with the buyer.
Mr Justice Twomey delivered the judgment on 8 June 2021. The court said the requested order was therefore mandatory in substance, requiring Mr Langan to show a strong case for the relief. It found he had not done so, and that there was not even a fair question to be tried about whether a binding settlement had been reached.
Mr Langan claimed he had agreed to settle debts of about €870,000 for €190,000, on terms that included removing the land from auction. Promontoria (Oyster) DAC disputed that any binding agreement had been made. The judgment records that the discussions with Link Asset Services asset manager Yvonne Loughran were repeatedly described in emails as without prejudice and subject to contract, and that proposals required formal approval by the loan owner.
The court considered Ms Loughran’s emails, contemporaneous call notes and affidavit alongside Mr Langan’s account. It said her records indicated that the €190,000 figure “may be considered” and that she could not guarantee the land would be withdrawn while the auction was under way. The judgment said Mr Langan gave no details of when or by whom the alleged offer was made, or whether other settlement terms had been agreed. It characterised his account of a binding agreement as a bare assertion.
The court also rejected, for the purposes of the injunction application, the argument that technical issues concerning the loan transfer, mortgage, receiver appointment and interest calculation established a strong case or a fair question to be tried. It said those issues could be argued at the substantive hearing; they were not finally determined by this application.
On the balance of justice, the court treated the dispute as a commercial contract claim and said damages would be an adequate remedy for Mr Langan if he later succeeded. It also considered that Promontoria could meet a damages award, while Mr Langan might not be able to do so if an injunction were wrongly granted. The court refused the injunction and asked the parties to try to agree outstanding matters. If further final orders were needed, the case was to be mentioned one week after judgment at 10.30 am.