The High Court has refused a bid by joint receivers Kieran Wallace and Mark Etherington to dismiss Francis Davey’s claim over the management of properties secured to a lender. The court found the claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action on the pleadings as they stood, but did not determine whether the receivers had been validly appointed or whether they breached any duties.
Davey’s 2019 claim seeks damages and other relief over alleged failures to maintain and manage the properties, including claims that properties were left vacant and rent was not collected. He also disputed the validity of the receivers’ appointment and their power to sell. The defendants argued that the claim was legally unsustainable and that Davey’s position was contradictory because he alleged both that they had no authority over the properties and that they failed to manage them properly.
In a judgment delivered on 12 March 2025, Ms Justice Sara Phelan said the claim could be read as addressing the receivers’ conduct in the past, avoiding a necessary contradiction. She held that the pleadings were not shown to be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The decision applied the high threshold for striking out a claim before trial, including where factual disputes or legal questions may require further consideration.
The court stressed that it was not deciding whether the receivers had been validly appointed. A judge had refused their interlocutory application for possession in separate proceedings in 2022 because necessary proofs were missing, but that decision did not determine the appointment’s validity. The High Court said that issue remained to be fully determined and was outside the present application.
If the appointment is ultimately found invalid, the current claim may fall away, though Davey may have other recourse or seek to amend his pleadings. If it is found valid, he may continue the claim and provide further particulars; the defendants may also seek fuller particulars. The court said legal principles concerning receivers’ duties could be considered against a properly particularised claim.
The defendants’ application was also refused because the court considered them estopped from seeking dismissal in light of representations made in the separate possession proceedings. Their request to require Davey to obtain prior permission before bringing further proceedings was not pressed at the hearing and was refused at this stage.
The court did not make a final costs order. It indicated that Davey, who represented himself, should ordinarily receive his expenses and outlay for the motion, but invited submissions on the precise order. The parties were listed to be heard on 27 March 2025 about the orders to be made and whether the two outstanding sets of proceedings should be managed together.