The High Court has refused a receiver’s application for orders that would have prevented John Hassett from interfering with the sale of a mortgaged house in County Limerick.
Mr Justice Allen said the application was presented as an interlocutory injunction but, in substance, sought to enable Luke Charleton to sell the property before the action went to trial. Because that would effectively determine the dispute, the plaintiff had to meet the higher threshold applicable to orders with that practical effect. The court refused the motion; it did not decide the parties’ underlying rights at a trial. Costs were left for a later hearing.
Charleton said he had been appointed receiver and mortgagee’s agent by Allied Irish Banks (AIB) in 2018. The loan and charge were transferred to Everyday Finance DAC in 2019, and the plaintiff’s case was that his appointment was novated to Everyday. But the copy novation deed in evidence was not signed by Everyday. The judge held that the evidence did not establish the novation. He also found no evidence Hassett had been notified of it.
The dispute concerned a seven-bedroom house in Meelick, County Limerick. Security contractors changed its locks in March 2020, and the evidence described further lock changes over the following months. Charleton sought orders restraining Hassett from trespassing or obstructing him. The request for an order requiring Hassett to leave the property was not pursued at the hearing.
The judge said Hassett was legally in possession the day before the first lock change. A charge holder could take possession without a court order only if it could do so peaceably. The evidence that locks were cut or drilled out, and that the house was occupied, raised an issue about whether possession had been lawfully taken. The court did not determine that issue conclusively on the interlocutory application.
Hassett said the property was his family home. The judge found conflicting evidence about its status and the purpose of the original lending, which he could not resolve at this stage. He also found the evidence insufficient to establish an allegation that Hassett had placed a beehive outside the front door.
The judge said Hassett had offered to cooperate if shown evidence that Charleton’s appointment was valid, and was entitled to inspect the relevant title documents. The plaintiff had not provided evidence of the property’s value or shown that damages would be inadequate if the case proceeded to trial. The judge concluded that the application was an attempt to obtain summary judgment through an interlocutory injunction and refused the motion.