The High Court granted a receiver interlocutory injunctive relief concerning 22 Northbrook Road, Ranelagh, including orders in the terms sought in his notice of motion. The orders were interim, pending determination of the substantive action; the court said it was not deciding the issues finally.
The receiver, appointed by Ulster Bank Ireland in November 2010 over properties including the premises, sought access and possession, protection from interference, rent and licence fee accounts and payment, and delivery of records and access devices. The bank’s October 2010 demand stated that €14,170,044.04 was then outstanding from Paul McCann’s borrower, John Morrissey. The court did not determine whether rents said to have been paid to Morrissey ultimately reached him.
Northbrook Property Management and Cyan Technologies claimed parts of the office space under leases made by Morrissey in July 2010. Darren Lancaster claimed a tenancy of the dwelling. The receiver argued that these arrangements were ineffective against the bank’s interest because the mortgage barred letting or parting with possession without the bank’s prior written consent. The court recorded that the bank had not given written consent. Morrissey and the other defendants disputed the receiver’s position, including whether the leases’ validity should be decided at the interlocutory stage. The court noted the bank’s facility documents referred to rental income and future lease agreements, but held that they did not vary the mortgage’s written-consent requirement.
The judge found a strong prima facie case that the leases and tenancy did not affect the bank’s mortgage interest. She also considered the arrangements unusual and found no evidence that the bank knew of or acquiesced in their creation. Applying the interlocutory test, the court concluded that damages would not adequately protect the receiver if relief were refused, while the receiver’s undertaking as to damages could compensate defendants if the injunction later proved wrongful. It found the balance of convenience favoured granting relief and rejected the laches objection because no prejudice from delay had been identified.
In October 2012, by consent and without prejudice to the receiver’s position, the court had directed delivery of keys and access devices for inspection purposes, subject to 48 hours’ written email notice and attendance by defendants’ representatives. The June 2013 decision followed a hearing that concluded on 6 June. It granted the interlocutory orders sought; the substantive claims remained to be determined.